Current Events > Landlords provide housing

(+) Yeah! (+)

scar the 1 posted...

No, a landlord's business is owning housing that someone else built. They expect payment from tenants for the risky task of making an investment.

Every business requires risky investment. I don't know why you mention that as if it were unique here.

It also doesn't matter that the landlord didnt build the home with their own hands. They paid for it. Either to have it built or to buy the property afterward. Then they rent it out to people who lack the ability to buy their own homes outright or who don't want the additional costs and responsibilities that come with actually owning the property. Since landlords are, generally, more responsible for the maintenance of the property.

Do you think someone too poor to buy their own property and save money will be able to afford to spend hundreds of dollars when their hot water heater, or thousands or dollars, when their central air conditioning unit breaks down? Their water well pump? And so on.

Generally, one of the benefits of renting is the tenant can call the landlord to have those maintenance issues take care of, without bearing the sudden financial burden themselves.

Sure, you might pivot to say "the landlord isn't doing the repair, the electrician, HVAC tech, or whatever does". Okay, so what? The landlord is the one bearing that cost. If you were buying instead of renting, you'd be on the hook for that on top of paying for your housing.

Not really sure what you think you're accomplishing by explaining to me that a house requires upkeep. It's not like I've said that those things are in any way related to why landlords are exploitative.

---

Hexenherz posted...

If you're renting a room then it's not really your property lmao

This is why I say everyone should take what those who chronically harass me (not you; Rebel) have to say about me with a large amount of salt. Im not renting a room, Im staying in a house that I own.

3PiesAndAFork posted...

Whatever happened to that landlord gimmick guy, Austin Era.

See my sig lol

Tenlaar posted...

I am absolutely shocked to see you once again making an anti-landlord topic and then refusing to acknowledge that there are people who choose to rent for various situations and your "abolish property ownership" shit really screws those people.

No one cares

---

The thing about upkeep is that the money for it has to come from somewhere. Many if not most landlords, especially for places like elaborate apartment complexes, generate that income by charging more in rent money than it costs to paydown the loans that bought/built the complex.

Even most individual homeowners renting out single rooms are likely to do this (though not all; i also wouldnt call somebody who lives in the house with me a landlord to be frank, thats a glorified roommate).

And thats where a lot of the parasitism comes from, because most of these landlords arent going to just sit on that money. Whatever they dont put back into the complex is profit that theyll take home, and theyll up the rent even more to generate that money.

Rents are high everywhere for a reason, and it isnt just because of inflation.

(Should also be noted that housing as human right is critical to the discussion as well; if youre not operating on that premise youre fundamentally not going to understand the problem)

---

scar the 1 posted...

Lol, wtf do you know about where I'm "focusing my energy"? I came into this topic and said that landlords are exploitative, and as a response, you condescendingly suggest where I should direct my activism. Let me ask you this: Do you think landlords are exploitative? Only answer if you feel you can spare the energy from your normally very impactful activism

Some, many even, certainly are, but I dont believe its an inherent aspect of landlording.

---

RebelElite791 posted...

Some, many even, certainly are, but I dont believe its an inherent aspect of landlording.

The relationship between landlord and tenant is inherently exploitative, its not about individuals. Its theft of labor value.

---

legendary_zell posted...

For poor people, they literally can't buy a house under any circumstances. It's not a choice for them, they don't qualify for the loans and they don't have the cash. So for someone in that situation, a service is not being provided, they're just paying to exist and have a roof over their heads. They're paying but not acquiring anything permanently, they're just giving over their money and potential savings to add to another party's potential savings.

Can people at least admit this or explain why it's wrong, for the poor?

If you guys want to preserve the rental market for the people who are renting for convenience, then here's the compromise: we can bring back renting when every man, woman, and child has adequate, safe, secure, and permanent housing. Until then, landlording is by necessity exploitation.

This about sums it up

---

How is this not moddable for trolling at this point?

---

At the very least, housing vouchers should be an entitlement like SNAP.

It wouldn't address the core issue and would have it's own problems, but it would at least mitigate the harmful outcomes for the majority of the housing insecure/overburdened by rent.


---

Turbam posted...

What's your beef with landlords about?

hes commie (not an insult, he is an actual commie, ask him). He feels everything should be free, etc

---

RebelElite791 posted...

Some, many even, certainly are, but I dont believe its an inherent aspect of landlording.

Ok then we disagree. I think it's exploitative by definition. Shelter is a basic human right, and landlords, by definition, force people to pay for it, just because they happened to be rich enough to hoard property. It's fundamentally the same thing as when people started hoarding hand sanitizer and other medical equipment at the start of the pandemic - they decided to make a profit out of just owning things that people need to survive. They don't provide a service, they just hoard an essential resource for profit.

---

I agree that shelter is a basic human right and needs to be guaranteed. But if an individual builds (or pays someone to build, before you play that card) a building its theirs to do what they want with.

---

RebelElite791 posted...

I agree that shelter is a basic human right and needs to be guaranteed. But if an individual builds (or pays someone to build, before you play that card) a building its theirs to do what they want with.

I know that's how it is. But that individual used resources that aren't infinite (such as land, material, probably other people's labor) in order to hoard shelter and exploit people's need for it. I think your framing is a little bit disingenuous.

---

We need to make the free government housing be in states with lower populations like Wyoming and North/South Dakota.

Lesson the burden on states like California.

CommonJoe posted...

Ok and? I already responded to this sentiment.

If your argument hinges on pretending that I only believe what I do because of my personal life, then youre not really here to argue fairly.

I recognized the parisitism of landlords well before I was ever homeless, and $5 says youll just respond to that concept with gatekeeping because apparently its only YOU that gets to decide what people get to believe.

That literally is privilege. But its not surprising you're getting so upset at having to confront that. Your living in a just world fallacy buddy.

LMFAO, this dude literally believes having a job, not being balls deep in debt from buying shit you dont need, and utilizing loans available to literally anybody is "privelege".

WOW.

It is so obnoxiously clear youve never actually struggled in your life. Ive climbed out of being homeless twice. It takes more than pulling up ones bootstraps to stay out of it.

Good for you
You don't know me lol. I've struggled plenty to get where I am, with nobody's help. Who made you the gatekeeper of priveledge and struggles? Hmm?

Fuck outta here

---

It's a little weird how often you bring this topic up unprovoked.

---

legendary_zell posted...

For poor people, they literally can't buy a house under any circumstances. It's not a choice for them, they don't qualify for the loans and they don't have the cash. So for someone in that situation, a service is not being provided, they're just paying to exist and have a roof over their heads. They're paying but not acquiring anything permanently, they're just giving over their money and potential savings to add to another party's potential savings.

Can people at least admit this or explain why it's wrong, for the poor?

If you guys want to preserve the rental market for the people who are renting for convenience, then here's the compromise: we can bring back renting when every man, woman, and child has adequate, safe, secure, and permanent housing. Until then, landlording is by necessity exploitation.

Thats not true, at all. Top of my head there's the USDA Rural Development Loan, poor credit is fine and NO money down required. Literally all you need is a job for at least a year and a credit score above 600 and be able to prove on paper you can afford it.

Stop making excuses, there are plenty of programs out there to help low income people become homeowners.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's a little weird how often you bring this topic up unprovoked.

The existence of landlording is a persistent provocation. It wont stop until lordships are abolished.

---

My father came to this country by himself when he was 17 while barely even knowing English. He obviously had no credit and barely any money. He started off making money by doing stuff like making restaurant awnings, making dresses, buying cameras to setup security systems for grocery stores and a bunch more other random stuff. Fast forward and he is now a legal citizen with high credit and owns 7 properties. There is an avenue for anyone to be successful and it is hard to sympathize with the topic because he earned this fair and square.

Shablagoo posted...

The existence of landlording is a persistent provocation. It wont stop until lordships are abolished.

LMFAO @ "lordships".

STFU, backing the day Lords by and far inherited or were given/bequeathed their land.

Most modern landlords earned their properties via hard work or loans, comrade.

"Persistent provocation" LOL that's a good one. Yeah, us landowners just sit out on the porch sipping lemonade in wicker rocking chairs chortling at the peasants going to their hives

Grow up dude

---

Here's a genuine offer: let's all pitch in to buy TC a ticket to China and he can get his fill of communism. He's happy and it's also great for us because afaik Gfaqs is off limits in glorious nation of China

---

Heres a genuine offer: stop trolling.

---

Turbam posted...

What's your beef with landlords about?

They're leeches who make a living off of other people's need for shelter? This isn't hard.

---

Shablagoo posted...

You are acting like you are right as a matter of course. I attempt to show you why you may be wrong, and you flippantly dismiss it outright.

Like here, for example. No, most people are not fine with giving a huge chunk of their income to someone whos only job in the equation is to own their home. Its the same relationship serfs had with feudal lords, who gave massive amounts of resources produced by their labor to their lords, out of some nebulous concept that the lords owned the land, for whatever reason.

Here are some choice quotes from Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, that Ill leave you with:

[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind.

The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/rent.htm

That article is about literal landlords, i.e. people who rent out land to farmers who then grow and produce crops. It isnt about renting homes.


---

PoundGarden posted...

Here's a genuine offer: let's all pitch in to buy TC a ticket to China and he can get his fill of communism. He's happy and it's also great for us because afaik Gfaqs is off limits in glorious nation of China

He's too busy deciding how to microwave his soup...

Clutch posted...

That article is about literal landlords, i.e. people who rent out land to farmers who then grow and produce crops. It isnt about renting homes.

Either way you are giving a massive percentage of the product of your labor to someone merely because they declared themselves lord of the land.

---

PoundGarden posted...

LMFAO, this dude literally believes having a job, not being balls deep in debt from buying shit you dont need, and utilizing loans available to literally anybody is "privelege".

WOW.

1. Yes, that is privilege. Your inability (either deliberate or otherwise) to recognize that doesnt change it.

And im sure some dumbshit vapid liberals gaslit you into thinking that being called privileged is an insult, but it isnt. I had a privileged upbringing and in a lot of ways, despite being homeless, still am, especially in comparison to others in my situation. That doesnt diminish what Ive accomplished or struggled with in my life.

2. The vast majority of my debt is medical, for one, with the other half being a verizon bill I refuse to pay on princible as they sold me a broken phone and tried, the same day I bought it, to make me buy it again to get it fixed. But that debt doesnt hold back my credit score to the degree my medical debt does, nor my lack of access to revolving credit.

You have a critical lack of understanding of the debt situation in the US if you think its centered around luxury goods bought on credit.

PoundGarden posted...

I've struggled plenty to get where I am, with nobody's help.

Again, because your privileged. You're not special because you had the necessary circumstances in life to do what youve done. Thats like bragging about climbing Everest when you just paid the couple hundred bucks to stand in line all the way up with everybody else. It isnt easy, but you didnt tame some wild mountaintop never touched by man. Thousands if not millions have been there, but billions more will never get the chance.


---

Shablagoo posted...

Either way you are giving a massive percentage of the product of your labor to someone merely because they declared themselves lord of the land.

Yeah, no. Maintaining a house is an expensive prospect. You have to buy or build it, maintain it, make sure the expenses are paid. Its a lot of responsibility and many people dont want to do it.


---

PoundGarden posted...

Thats not true, at all. Top of my head there's the USDA Rural Development Loan, poor credit is fine and NO money down required. Literally all you need is a job for at least a year and a credit score above 600 and be able to prove on paper you can afford it.

Stop making excuses, there are plenty of programs out there to help low income people become homeowners.

Those are requirements on place, income, and credit score even in the example you're giving. But people who don't meet those criteria still need housing. What are they supposed to do? None of this covers the people living in tin shacks in the 5th Ward of Houston. It doesn't cover people who can't get jobs. It doesn't cover people with serious financial issues.

You people always say there's "plenty" of this and "plenty" of that. And yet so many are homeless or endlessly pay rent to live in slums. There is not any sort of plenty for these people.

Mostly what they deal with are waits, lists, denied applications, uncertainty, and exploitation.

At the end of the day, many people cannot outright purchase housing while others collect it and charge them to occupy it because they don't functionally have another choice.

---

Clutch posted...

Yeah, no. Maintaining a house is an expensive prospect. You have to buy or build it, maintain it, make sure the expenses are paid. Its a lot of responsibility and many people dont want to do it.

No one is arguing that labor expended in the maintenance of properties should not be compensated. The problem is that the cost of rent far, far exceeds the cost of maintenance.

---

scar the 1 posted...

You seem to be completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that landlords are exploitative and should be abolished. I'm not making a detailed policy proposal for how to do that.
I'm also not saying that maintenance, utilities, etc should be free. Upkeep and custodianship are services that should be fairly compensated. Owning a property is not a service.

Except that, by renting out a property, the owner is required to handle upkeep and custodianship. You guys act like landlords literally do nothing. If the hot water stops working? The landlord fixes that and pays for it themselves. Same with any electrical issues, heating, roofing, plumbing, and so on.

The entire anti landlord argument in this topic, is predicated on the idea that landlords get money for doing nothing. But, landlords do a lot. If it's one person managing a large apartment complex, they can be damn busy.

My other issue (and this is more with the topic as a whole, not you specifically), is the alternative would be government housing. That may work well in other countries, but in the US, while government housing is cheap and affordable, it's also rundown and poorly maintained. Because anything the government does has to go through redundant forms and multiple approvals. So fixes take forever. Oh and there's a waitlist for those properties, because, you guessed it, redundant forms and multiple approvals, before new residents can be accepted.

Rather than abolish landlords, what should be done is implement better protections for renters. In the city of Los Angeles, properties are rent controlled. Meaning, rent can't be increased by more than 8% at a time. And rent can only be increased once every 12 months. But in other cities within LA county, like Hawthorne, outside of the lease period, there's no maximum and no limit on how many times it can be raised. The only law is that renters must be given written notice that the increase will be happening. 30 days for 9% and below, or 60 days if the increase is 10% or more. Those are the areas that can be potentially exploitative. But the problem is the lack of laws preventing the exploitation.

---

Shablagoo posted...

Either way you are giving a massive percentage of the product of your labor to someone merely because they declared themselves lord of the land.

They didn't just "declare themselves lord of the land", holy fuck dude what are you a failed actor or something?
They bought and earned the property, its simply astonishing how the very basic concept of ownership continues to elude you. The only reality in which your shit position holds any merit is back in the middle ages when you'd actually have a point.

Grow up and enter the 21st century plz

---

CommonJoe posted...

PoundGarden posted...
LMFAO, this dude literally believes having a job, not being balls deep in debt from buying shit you dont need, and utilizing loans available to literally anybody is "privelege".

WOW.

CommonJoe posted...

1. Yes, that is privilege. Your inability (either deliberate or otherwise) to recognize that doesnt change it.

L
M
F
A
O

Dude you have a world of growing up to do. Having a job is not fucking priveledge, fuck off with that soft ass bullshit

Not being $40k in debt because I bought a brand new car @ 19 like a moron is not "priveledge".

Not being $100k in debt because I opted not to fully pursue college is not "privelege".

Having a minimum 600 credit score (you can be balls deep in debt and collections and still be above 600 lmao) is not "privelege".

The fact that you think what amounts to the bare minimum requirement to be basically solidly lower class is "privelege" speaks fucking volumes, grow up

---

Shablagoo posted...

No one is arguing that labor expended in the maintenance of properties should not be compensated. The problem is that the cost of rent far, far exceeds the cost of maintenance.

How many years or rent do you have to pay until it exceeds the cost of the home plus upkeep costs?

---

That you keep deliberately spelling the word privilege wrong makes it clear youre trolling. Have fun in blocked land dipshit.

---

Shablagoo posted...

No one is arguing that labor expended in the maintenance of properties should not be compensated. The problem is that the cost of rent far, far exceeds the cost of maintenance.

And the cost of acquisition fucking eclipses the cost of renting. DeeeeeeRp

Its like you're being intentionally obtuse, even the pinkest of commies at least understand that basic elementary school concept.

---

Honest question because im curious what opinions would be. If I build a vacation home in Italy (lets say a touristy area where no locals are in need of housing) and rent it out to other vacationers when im not there, is that exploitation? Or does it being essentially a luxury good change that?

---

RebelElite791 posted...

Honest question because im curious what opinions would be. If I build a vacation home in Italy (lets say a touristy area where no locals are in need of housing) and rent it out to other vacationers when im not there, is that exploitation? Or does it being essentially a luxury good change that?

Youre not a landlord in the conventional sense. Youre a hotel owner. Very different.

---

SquirtleSkwad posted...

They're leeches who make a living off of other people's need for shelter? This isn't hard.

that's like saying grocery store owners make a living off of peoples' need to eat.

RebelElite791 posted...

Honest question because im curious what opinions would be. If I build a vacation home in Italy (lets say a touristy area where no locals are in need of housing) and rent it out to other vacationers when im not there, is that exploitation? Or does it being essentially a luxury good change that?

To this crowd anything that classifies as a luxury is wrong and should be given away to hose that have not.

Seriously, almost 150 posts and none of the anti landlord children can answer the question of where people are supposed to rent from if we abolish landlords.

---

Fam_Fam posted...

that's like saying grocery store owners make a living off of peoples' need to eat.

I'm pretty sure Squirtle thinks food, housing, and transportation should all be free for everyone lmao

---

Fam_Fam posted...

that's like saying grocery store owners make a living off of peoples' need to eat. shall we abolish grocery stores to prevent this exploitation?

YeS fOoD iZ a BaSiC rIgHt AnD sHoUlD bEe fReE

---

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

food, housing, and

Why not? Necessities of human life.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

transportation

Personal transportation perhaps not, public however? Again, why not? Its jobs, infrastructure, and even income.

---

CommonJoe posted...

Why not? Necessities of human life.

Personal transportation perhaps not, public however? Again, why not? Its jobs, infrastructure, and even income.

So who compensates the farmers and laborers for their work in planting, growing, and transporting the food to you?

---

PoundGarden posted...

LMFAO, this dude literally believes having a job, not being balls deep in debt from buying shit you dont need, and utilizing loans available to literally anybody is "privelege".

WOW.

Good for you
You don't know me lol. I've struggled plenty to get where I am, with nobody's help. Who made you the gatekeeper of priveledge and struggles? Hmm?

Fuck outta here

As an anecdote, my mother was denied a car loan because of her bad credit.
She made poor decisions in her life, and now is facing the consequences.
There is no way she will qualify for a home loan, or a home improvement loan.
There are real people who are struggling and you're failing to acknowledge it.

PoundGarden posted...

Seriously, almost 150 posts and none of the anti landlord children can answer the question of where people are supposed to rent from if we abolish landlords.

We don't want people to rent, that's the point.
Just get rid of renting housing. Housing is a basic need.
Turn apartment buildings into community owned housing, where the tenants manage the building themselves.

I don't sign a contract with my grocery store. And only like one makes me give them a deposit to use the cart

---

Joshsonic26 posted...

As an anecdote, my mother was denied a car loan because of her bad credit.
She made poor decisions in her life, and now is facing the consequences.
There is no way she will qualify for a home loan, or a home improvement loan.
There are real people who are struggling and you're failing to acknowledge it.

Fascinating. As an anecdote: there are plenty of people who wouldn't qualify for a car loan but would qualify for a home loan as the criteria for approval is different as are the financing/lending options.

But you knew that. Don't sprain anything grasping for straws. Cute story though.

Joshsonic26 posted...

We don't want people to rent, that's the point.
Just get rid of renting housing. Housing is a basic need.
Turn apartment buildings into community owned housing, where the tenants manage the building themselves.

LMFAO. So basically "i want free shit" or "the community will magically work together and create this beautiful utopia where everyone pitches in and maintains!"

Holy fuck were you like drown in a barrel of naivety and then brought back to life? Has that ever worked, ever?
If you want a glimpse into the reality of government/communal housing feast your eyes on any poor urban neighborhood or even Slab City. Those look like just awesome places to live right? And by "turn them into" you mean "seize the properties by force from the legal, rightful owners", da comrade?

Grow. Up.

---

NES4EVER posted...

So who compensates the farmers and laborers for their work in planting, growing, and transporting the food to you?

Taxes. Idk nor care what OP was peddling in whatever other topic, but taxes is the answer.


---

CommonJoe posted...

Taxes. Idk nor care what OP was peddling in whatever other topic, but taxes is the answer.

Taxes from who? Where are we generating tax income if we make all these things free?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Taxes from who? Where are we generating tax income if we make all these things free?

Are you like, a child or do you just not know where taxes come from? When its literally a 5 second google search away?

Sad.

---