569
Responsible guidance is a choice
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
569 points (94.8% liked)
memes
10308 readers
1218 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What does that have to do with pouring grease down the drain? Whether you agree with landlords or not it's objectively not the right thing to do and if anything will just be a pain in the ass for the next tenant
It’s Boomer mentality, plain and simple. “It won’t affect me, so Not My Problem™️”
People like this are why I am hesitant to rent. I don't need the investment, but I'm good at owning and keeping up property, and I've thought about renting out my spare area at below cost just so someone can have a cheaper place to live, just while I pay it off. Like hey, I have a spare suite in my house, someone could live there since I don't need the space. It's not the Ritz, but a young couple trying to get started or a young family could use it while they save up for a down payment.
Then someone comes along and says "yeah I'm going to trash it because fuck landlords". Like, ok, fuck me for trying to provide a cheaper alternative to the huge corporate housing. Guess I deserve it for ... Reasons
Edit - I remembered it elsewhere, but posting it in this comment too. Independent landlords are not wealthy. Maybe they inherited a house from a family member, or what I describe, I could afford to upgrade but want to keep my old place and rent out below cost while I continued fixing it up. People who think "Landlords are rich" need to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxIgGkA5tXM Corporations buying property is one thing, people who have dozens of properties are one thing, someone just renting out a spare room or a spare property? You're probably financially ruining them.
I'm renting half someone's basement right now in a situation like you're describing. I'm very grateful to them for the opportunity and am not surreptitiously destroying their home. I've actually done several repairs for them since I started living here. I've known them for a long time though so they knew they could trust me.
That's who I'd love to rent to. It's not about profit for me, but more I have property and I can rent for under value. People are freaking assholes though.
This video haunts me, I saw it originally years ago, this guy breaking down over what renters did to his property: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxIgGkA5tXM
Yea, I don't think I could ever rent something I owned to somebody I didn't know or even a lot of people I do know. Lots of people have no care for things that don't belong to them.
Owner occupancy credit against property taxes to hold them at their current rates, or even drop them a bit. Next, we target an 85% owner-occupancy rate, increasing the property taxes every year that owner-occupancy rate is below 80%, and reducing them any time it is above 90%. We will end up with a massive increase in property tax rates, but those increased taxes will only be paid by investors.
On-site landlords, living in one unit of a duplex, triplex, or quadplex will be able to claim the credit. Off-site landlords, (or landlords living in a complex of 5 or more units) will not be able to claim the credit.
Investor-owners will be fighting tooth and nail to convert their tenants into buyers: they will be offering land contracts, private mortgages, converting apartments to condominiums, etc. They will be earning considerably greater profits selling than they would be able to renting, while charging less.
Lenders who elect to foreclose will be saddled with the property tax rate from the moment they file, so they will have one hell of a financial incentive to cooperate with the borrower.
An owner-occupancy tax credit will give renting the death it deserves.
This sounds extremely effective at shifting housing stock. My only question is what happens to people who can't get mortgages yet? You can't just give out a mortgage to anyone who asks. The banks did effectively that in the lead up to 2008 and we saw how that worked out (granted the specifics are far more muddy, but it is a period in recent history where many people qualified for mortgages they shouldn't have qualified for, and a ton of people ended up foreclosing
You can give a mortgage to anyone who wants it, just not the type of mortgage that you're thinking of. Private mortgages don't have the follow on effects that traditional mortgages have. Private mortgages aren't bought and sold on a secondary market. Private mortgages aren't wrapped up into CDOs or other derivative investment products. A lender who issues a private mortgage can't turn around and sell it to a different lender. They can't package up a bunch of garbage loans into a new security and sell it to an unsuspecting buyer. The 2008 housing market collapse wasn't because of bad mortgages. It was because of the entire house of cards that was built on top of them.
Whether Adam rents a home to Bob, or Adam issues a private mortgage and sells to Bob, Adam is taking substantially the same risk on Bob. Adam is already prepared to take that risk as Bob's landlord; there is no valid reason why he shouldn't take that exact same risk as Bob's lender.
Land contracts are another option.
A land contract is, effectively, a rent-to-own arrangement. The tenant/buyer earns equity from day one. But, if they default on the contract on the first 3 or 5 years, they lose that equity. After that 3 or 5 year period, the equity they built is, effectively, the down payment on their mortgage.
So when are you going out and building houses for free for people to use?
So vote for people who do that. Except you won't find any, because it's a fever dream. No government can afford just building houses for millions of people. Some have tried and ended up with consequences that they deal with till today
No it didn't and that's not how it works. Also living in the Soviet Union fucking sucked and reading about it on the internet won't give you the full picture.