ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:
Landlords do not provide housing.
They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.
Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.
What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.
Landlords provide serfdom, and they are needed because of the serfdom the worst offenders impose on society.
If you live in a house long enough you should begin to have a claim on it. Most landlords add zero value to it, they only harvest it.
There is a solution for landlords that we’ve known about for a long time.
And its doesn’t involve the a massive, powerful state controlling where people can live.
Its a 100% tax on the value of land. It would stop the landowning class from unfairly stealing huge amounts of money from the poor in the form of rent. It could fund the government (allowing us to decrease taxes that hurt labor, like an income tax), or be redistributed as UBI.
Seriously, if you are at all interested in potential solutions to the housing crises and wealth inequality, please, please, google Land Value Tax and Georgism.
Landlords would just raise rent and claim the taxes as an expense. If they couldn’t claim it as expenses they’ll just increase rent even more.
What does this mean? It sounds like paying rent to the government using different words. A better solution I see is limiting the amount and type of property an individual can own before taxes are raised significantly or more severe steps are taken.
Why not pay rent to the government? Without a profit incentive, the value of housing would go down and the money you’re paying in rent to the government would go on to fund public services rather than private equity firms, bank executives and shareholders
I live in a city where property values have increased by an order of magnitude over about 40 years.
Yes, we have a lot of speculators and wealthy landowners who need to be taxed out of existence.
But we also have a problem where seniors on fixed incomes who have owned their homes for 30 - 50 years cannot afford their property taxes because the land their homes are sitting on has exploded in value.
There is a solution to this: homestead exemption. A lot of states already implement implement this with their normal property tax. If a property is your primary residence, then the tax you pay on it cannot increase by more than x% a year. Some states also give preferential tax treatment to senior’s primary residence. Their is no reason we couldn’t implement these same breaks on a LVT.
So they wouldn’t be able to afford their taxes with a LVT, but they can’t afford their taxes under the current property tax regime (in which land value is also a factor). I don’t see how this is an argument against LVT.
But, zooming out, is it beneficial to society to have empty-nesters, and elderly single people, living in 3- or 4-bedroom houses when there’s a critical housing shortage for young families? Is it even good for them to live in a big house, when a nearby, smaller dwelling that’s cheaper, and easier to clean and keep up? The problem in the United States is that those smaller dwelling units don’t exist at all in most neighborhoods, and about the only option is to move to an “independent living” facility on the edge of town, away from family an neighbors, for $3,000 a month.
It could be a win-win: Elderly owners of high-value land could realize the cash value that’s currently locked up in their houses, while the city could benefit by intensified development of that same land, increasing nearby land values even more. We need to change the zoning code to allow building that missing-middle housing in the same neighborhoods, but if we did that, a land-value tax would help incentivize its construction.
USA government is far too greedy and won’t ever do it.
Especially if it helps old people or people living off of ‘benefits’.
I’d be willing to consider it if there was an extreme homestead exemption.
Say a renter starts doing good job and money wise for themselves. They invest their surplus in investment options like mutual funds and deposits and so on. Then their surplus is enough to invest into real estate. Should they not?
No. Housing is a human right, not a commodity. A renter going on to invest in real estate is being the crab in a bucket climbing over others then pulling back the ladder that capitalism wants them to be.
I don’t understand how would a 100% land tax work? If you own a 300k house you’d have to pay 300k in taxes every year? So basically making housing unaffordable except for the ultra rich?
Also why would anyone build apartments if they weren’t going to make a profit? What’s the incentive? No one would do anything if they couldn’t make money doing it.
If landlords are bad or too expensive why not move, another building another state another lower cost of living area? Agreed rents are super high but that’s mostly in dense urban areas. You’re paying a premium for location.
I’m really not seeing any honest answers here about how to fix this problem. Besides the government should provide everyone free housing? How would that work how would you decide who gets to live where? Who gets the apartment on the lake vs next to the airport/oil refinery?
Like I get it housing is expensive but I haven’t seen anything here that would actually help fix that? Ironically more landlords and more apartments would probably help.
Why not just move? Yeah I’m gonna tell my childrens mother that I’m taking off. Just can’t afford this shit anymore, sorry. Then get hit with the inevitable child support payments that will end you up in jail in no time anyway.
Just toss all that shit aside and move somewhere rural and shitty so you can afford it! (Oops, forgot to mention that pay is also significantly lower now so you still can’t afford anything )
You would only pay tax on the unimproved value of land. You pay no tax on everything built on it. So an empty 1-acre lot next to an apartment building providing 100 homes on a 1-acre lot would both pay the same taxes.
So landlords would earn a profit but they wouldn’t earn rent (in the neoclassical sense).
Its almost like anybody who wants exclusive access to land (for their housing or their business) has to pay society for the right to use it. And if a business (like an apartment) tried to pass on costs to customer (their renters) without providing more or better services, they are essentially just admitting their land got more valuable, so they would just pay more in land value tax (thereby providing more funding for UBI or public services)
Okay that kind of makes sense. There is a problem though, well three.
Imagine you live in a small town. Something happens (COVID for instance) and your town becomes popular and your land value goes up. Yesterday your house was worth 100k but now it’s worth 500k+. Your saying those people should essentially be forced out of their homes? To be bought up by rich people?
Additionally this means only the super rich would be able to afford homes? This tax would essentially mean only the top 1% could have a home and basically give them a free for all on any land they want. Why would we want that?
Lastly if you increased land tax by that much landlords would have to increase rent prices to offset this? So even with a govt subsidy the renter is still the person paying this increase.
Honestly I’m intrigued by this idea but once you start thinking about how it would work it falls apart. There is probably some variation of this that could work. Maybe in cities they’ll be an extratax if you don’t build some sort of minimum housing? But this is already pretty similar to just basic property taxes.
How does this work for land for agricultural use? It’s going to increase the tax burden on producers and increase the cost of food unless I misunderstand how this works and how it’s different than property tax
Imagine you live in a small town. Something happens (COVID for instance) and your town becomes popular and your land value goes up. Yesterday your house was worth 100k but now it’s worth 500k+. Your saying those people should essentially be forced out of their homes? To be bought up by rich people?
No, because
You would only pay tax on the unimproved value of land. You pay no tax on everything built on it.
Your unimproved land value may increase in that instance, but it wouldn’t suddenly jump up the amount you’re implying, unless the economy catastrophically collapses.
That’s exactly an instance where this would happen. Since the value of the land itself not what’s built on it is valuable in this instance. Look at the value of the land near any ski resort town over the last 10 years.
The assessed value of a property is only indirectly related to the property tax that the owner pays. Municipalities multiply the assessed value of a property by the mill rate to calculate the taxes. They set the mill rate essentially by dividing their budgetary revenue needs by the total assessed value of all properties in the municipality. If my assessment goes way up (say, I put an addition on my house), then my taxes go up. But if everybody’s assessment goes up proportionally, then my taxes don’t change, because the mill rate will drop.
The latter is the situation in those ski-resort towns. It means that property owners suddenly have a much-higher net worth, but doesn’t necessarily mean they’re paying more in taxes. It only means that if the rich people moving in demand more and better municipal services, and raise spending.
On the other hand, look at the perverse incentive built into the current system: Landlords can reduce their taxes by letting their properties decay (lowering their assessed value); or at least, the system disincentivizes improvements which raise the assessed value. In a popular ski-resort town, or college town like mine, we get slumlords, because the vacancy rate is so low that they know that they can get tenants even in run-down units.
If the landlords do not provide a service, you’re welcome to go to the bank to approve your loan, buy or build a house, maintain it, pay back the loan and deal with delinquent renters and sell it when it’s time for you to move out. None of which concerns you as a renter.
It is a massive PITA and it’s a so-so store of value at best. That there are assholes who charge you through the nose for the rent doesn’t mean it’s a landlord problem. It’s an asshole problem.
My landlady just put my rent up fifty quid. She owns (and rents out) 23 other properties. She’s raking in everyone else’s money. Fuck landlords.
Nobody tell this dude about co-ops, market rate housing, non profits, etc.
I am a freelancer. The bank wont loan me shit.
it’s a so-so store of value at best.
For that to be true you need to be living in a place where price/rent has not doubled or even quadrupled in the past 10 years.
Bull-fucking-shit.
20 years ago, houses in my neighborhood were selling for around $50k. Those same houses today hold a current market value of over $800k.
For comparison, the value of the USD has lost roughly 40% in value over the last 20 years, meaning if the houses in my neighborhood were only a “so-so store of value” (tracking inflation) they would be worth roughly $80k today, 10x less than the current market value.
For another comparison, if you put $50k into an index fund that tracked the S&P500 20 years ago, it would be worth roughly $350k today. That’s not even half of the return houses in my neighborhood are getting over the same time period.
Sure it costs a lot of money to maintain a house and pay taxes and insurance over that 20 years and that’s going to eat into those returns. But I can guarantee you I’m paying more than that to rent a similarly-sized property, which you would be doing anyway if you didn’t have the capital to own a home.
I live a college town. Most students don’t want to buy a house to live in for four years and many don’t want to live in dorms either.
deleted by creator
property management and real estate firms are an affront to humanity, but i would like to point out that not all of us come to own more property than we need through greedy schemes. my parents bought a lot of real estate in the 90’s to be able to house their loved ones. my mother almost single-handedly provided housing for my grandmother, my aunts, my cousin, my step brothers, and myself even.
as they have passed on, i have either rented or sold that property to other friends and family at very reasonable prices. there is no single act that is inherently evil. there is no one size fits all label. our individual actions and intentions define us.
EDIT: just wanted to point out to the downvoter that she did this as a factory worker earning minimum wage. she was not then nor is she now rich by any metric. she still lives in a shitty neighborhood in MS. she sacrificed her luxury to help others she cared about.
EDIT 2: although i am pretty hard core leftist, i find my peers to be pretty insufferable. there is a reason that most centrists get turned off by you people. most of you would rather virtue signal than think critically.
No one should get a second home until everyone’s had their first.
The policy issue to overcome here in America is a robust pension system. Home values are obscene for a lot of reasons but one of the biggest reasons no one does anything about it is because for most non elite Americans the home they own is their most valuable asset and the growth in equity ends up becoming a significant contributor to retirement
Even with that the dream is over; the days of baby boomers buying houses and seeing explosive growth of 12-20k in 1960 to 200ish-k in 2010 or even gen x buying a house for 100k in 1995 and seeing it mature to 400k in 2020 are unsustainable. The people buying 250-400k houses now (like me) would be foolish to expect their homes to be worth millions in 30 years outside of hyperinflation.
But I bet money we will cling to it. It’s difficult having seen the past several generations retire very comfortably via the equity in their home, while we make the $2000 mortgage payment that will get us housing but not this benefit. Another way millennials get fucked out of something that every modern generation before them had. To be fair this one had to die but it just sucks all of this gets saddled on us because it’s not like there’s a strong likelihood social security is getting fixed in time
The woman I toured a few houses with last week is in her late 60s and I was telling her how frustrating it was to have lost so many houses to people offering cash deals 30k over list. She decided to tell me a long story about how she reconnected with a lost love and moved down to Florida with him. But being far from family was tough so they decided to buy a second house out here for when they travel. They got “an amazing house” by offering cash, 30k over asking. She lamented how it felt like they were taking someone’s starter home but her now-husband reassured her that whatever family they outbid just has to wait 20 years.
All I could say was, “you probably did buy a young family’s starter home. Maybe it was even mine.”
Congrats on owning two houses, I guess.
Buying a home now requires so much money down, and will still have monthly payments higher than renting, it’s not even a question for me. Home ownership isn’t in the cards and may never be.
Rich people: “Can I have a 4th home, just as a little treat for myself?”
I don’t think he knows about the 4th home.
With homes i agree and with apartment buildings over 10 units it should be mandated to maintain 95% occupancy year round across ALL owned buildings. Only reason I say 95% is because there’s gonna be highs and lows so I think 5% is very fair for unoccupied space. This would also cover the in-between of someone moving out and needing to get the unit ready for another person. If a land owner can maintain that then I think it’s fair to let them continue growing and should they fail to meet the requirements then they can’t buy any more properties. I would recommend also that 1 single year of 95% doesn’t immediately qualify you for growth. A penalty of 2 years consistently having 95% must be required.
Not sure you thought through your numbers if only because 95% of 10 means you can only have half a unit unoccupied.
Round up dawg. Most apartments these days have 20+ units anyways.
But the comment says it would apply to buildings with over 10 units. So, for a building with 11 units, that gives 132 unit-months per year. With a maximum unoccupied rate, that’s 6.6 unit-months per year.
As the renter, I’d really appreciate my landlord wait until I’ve actually moved out to start showing my unit, although they don’t always do that. Assume all 11 units decide to move at the end of their leases, that means the owner has a little about 3 weeks per unit to clean, do any maintenance and repairs, and find a new tenant. If the unit needs extensive repairs/cleaning, the owner probably doesn’t want to even start showing it until the repairs are completed. Hopefully most tenants renew their leases and stay longer than 1 year, but the owner can’t count on that. Even on a larger building, the numbers still average out to 3 weeks per unit, but at least the effect of a few extra non-renewals is smaller.
I think a 90% occupancy rate would be a little more realistic, but would probably still need some room for exceptions.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with you. 95% is probably just a random number the other commenter came up with. Certainly if this system was to be put in place, we’d need to have a more flexible solution than just a plain percentage.
Hear hear.
Oh my god, tell me about it.
Even when you want to rent a place and can afford to do so, landlords make the situation really difficult because many of them put up places supposedly for rent, but make it as difficult as possible for someone to actually qualify to rent it, since they’re only doing it to inflate their net worth and having someone living there apparently devalues it. It took me over a year to find a place that actually was willing to let me rent it because most others would cook up bullshit reasons to reject me (my personal favourite being one that got mad at me and put me in their blacklist for… asking too many questions about their property???).
Like… I have money. They are offering a good in exchange for money. I am willing to spend money in exchange for this good. It shouldn’t be this hard.
I’m in a similar situation. Add disability (which means at least 80% of properties aren’t suitable without serious adaptation) and benefits to the equation, and I’m considered “too big a risk” (even though having me as a tenant means funnelling government money directly in to landlord’s pockets). The polite landlords and agents will play along and pretend to take me seriously before they very obviously put my aplication at the bottom of a pile and never call me back, while some feel comfortable enough to openly discriminate against me, because despite the law saying they can’t, no one actually enforces it, and they know they can get away with it. The ratio of applicants per property are so obscenely out of whack, they can place as many illegal conditions as they like, and people will continue to flock, borderline beg, to be allowed to spend 75% of their income on a shitty little hellhole.
I realised that I had to limit myself to only applying to places that are at least £100 less a month than I pay now, and even those automatically reject me on grounds of “affordability”, meanwhile my landlord just keeps putting my rent up in an attempt to push me out so they can then charge the next person even more, and I keep paying it because I simply can’t find anywhere else suitable to go.
To say it’s distressing would be the understatement of the century.
That really fucking sucks, I’m so sorry you have to deal with this bullshit. Landlords really are the worst.
I appreciate it, back at you. None of us should be putting up with this bullshit.
Alright but…there actually is a legitimate service that landlords provide. If someone does not want to own and maintain a property for a long period of time, or doesn’t have enough money or means to satisfy a lender that they will be able to repay a very large loan on that property over a long time, a rental agreement is beneficial. Grad students, visa holders, travel nurses, etc probably don’t want to purchase the property they’re temporarily staying in.
Sure, how many people do you think you’d walk up to who are renting who would say that that’s their situation?
Why are you talking about the exception not explicitly the problem that this is supposed to be trying to address?
The issues are people who want to purchase cannot while people have more than one.
Are you saying we prioritize those renters over homeowners? Is that better for the economy of the country to have people who are renting as opposed to people who own?
Edit: also how does this work if a country cares about their citizens and absolutely any of their citizens are homeless while someone has extra and empty housing?
You don’t have to rent from a landlord, you should have the ability to rent from a nonprofit, a co-op, etc. Housing is a human right and should never be about profit.
Landlords aren’t the exclusive source for short term housing, and don’t need to be defended in this way. Advocate for and support collective ownership via housing cooperatives. Landlording is the practice of leeching money from the working class.
Long-term stay hotels used to be a major source of short term housing. They mostly disappeared because of zoning law changes and in some cases fire code / housing code changes. There are problems with hotels / hoteliers. But, having a variety of solutions means various housing options have to compete with each-other, which is normally good for the person needing a place to stay.
I certainly think that we need to embrace more hostels and long term hotels, but we also need to remember that those are not solutions to homelessness. My goal is to direct them away from viewing housing as a commodity stock for capital first, then they can broaden their horizons with several various nonmarket solutions to providing housing.
Land Contract (sometimes called “contract for deed”) provides all of those same benefits, from the same people, to the same people, as renting. It is a bit of a misnomer in that it applies to any real property, and not just “land”.
The difference from renting is that with the land contract:
-
- The monthly price is fixed for the life of the contract;
-
- After three years (in my state), the occupant begins gaining equity.
Grad students, visa holders, travel nurses, etc. might not necessarily want to purchase the property they are staying in, but they might also find themselves living in that area for longer than they expect. A land contract gives them the security of fixed housing costs and the flexibility of being able to walk away at any time and for any reason. They also allow the occupant to begin earning equity while still living in “temporary” housing, allowing them to save more for the future.
But, in our current market, renting is more lucrative to the landlord.
So how do we drive landlords to offer land contracts instead of rental agreements? We provide property tax exemptions to owner-occupants. We increase the nominal property tax rate: run it sky high. But, the owner-occupant exemption means the effective tax rate for homeowners (including land contract buyers) doesn’t actually increase. Only investors - people who own housing they don’t live in - will be paying that punitively-high tax rate.
With that sky-high tax on investment properties, today’s landlords will be incentivized to become private lenders. They will be taking the exact same financial risk on the exact same people, but now those people will be called “buyers” instead of “tenants”.
The only “renting” that will still remain is from landlords who live in one unit of a 2-4 unit property, or a roommate agreement, or short-term use like hotels and motels.
Home ownership is the single best predictor of financial prosperity in the US. Every housing contract should include some sort of provision for equity.
-
There is a legitimate service being provided there. It just shouldn’t be “lords” who provide it.
The problem is that the “lord” is earning tens of thousands of dollars per year for essentially no work. This makes it essentially similar to how a “lord” worked in a Feudalist system. This isn’t even capitalism where someone owns capital and uses that capital to generate profit. This is just demanding a payment for being in a place.
Since being a landlord requires essentially no work, landlords can accumulate wealth, buy more property, get even more income, buy more property, etc. More wealth / property means more political power. The main thing that political power will be used for is to gain and retain more wealth, which is equivalent to more power.
Imagine how different would be if nobody could ever rent out more than one property, especially combined with a vacant units tax. You’d still have “landlords” but they would be much less lord-like.
I rent my house to military who don’t want to buy because they’ll leave in 2-3 years
And my dear grandma rents her old flat to a single mum and her kids, who’s down on her luck, for so little that she’s practically paying them to live there, until she can find a place to buy. My grandma hasn’t been able to stay there since pops past away while saving a bunch of babies from a fire.
Therefore, landlordism is justified.
I agree. I had a period where I moved very frequently and would not have wanted the headache of having any financial stake in the apartments I lived. Being able to just say I wasn’t renewing the lease and never having to think about the place again was very convenient. You also don’t appreciate how nice it is to not have to worry about maintenance until it’s your responsibility.
Don’t ever call what landlords do a service. They do it for profit. It’s not a service.
So does a lawyer, a mechanic, a doctor or a delivery guy. They offer a service in exchange for money.
Where the cinnamon toast fuck do you live where a service exchanged for money is not done for a profit? Does your town have a grocery store selling goods at exactly cost?
Does your town have a grocery store selling goods at exactly cost?
No, you’re describing a co-op. Which my town does have, right across the street from the for-profit grocery store.
Ok good, so I guess the coop provides a service.
How do you get your Internet? Is that a service to you or is someone making a profit? Or perhaps everyone in this sub lives in a communal utopia where services never turn a profit of any kind.
But a good landlord with fair prices will prevent evil landlords from price gouging tenants! /s
I mean this can happen, but nobody should have to rely on the good will of some random person. Thats one thing i learned as a kid, never trust people with money amounts of that order unless they are legally obligated to fullfill their promises. People can be super cool and nice right until they need money.
You had me in the first half, ngl…
Ok but where’s the punchline? Why is this even a comic?
Not all sequential art is meant to be funny.
Side note: One of the best non-fiction books of all time is Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud.
You’d expect a sub that’s about memes to contain memes, or, if not quite memes in the “proper” sense of the word, at least generally funny or entertaining content. This is just a brief lecture in four panels. McCloud’s wonderful comic is pretty much the last thing this could remind me of.
“memes” in the proper sense of the word are not inherently funny or amusing. Same with “satire”, for what it’s worth.
I disagree, i do agree that a comic is not perse a meme but a meme does not need to be entertaining or funny.
Memes are an evolution of language. A picture can convey a thousands words at a glance and by sharing recognizable meme patterns we can streamline that language for efficient consumption.
Most memes do tend to be humor because humor is an effective and popular language format but plenty of nom humor examples exist: Rage comics/Wozak, loss.
Other argument: In some ways the “4 panel comic” pattern is a meme. And there is something funny in that its a child saying it while holding wildly different positions. That does convey a certain recognizable “but what do i know, I am just trying to live my own life”
We could argue its subjectively bad or ineffective at being a meme, but in the subjective nature of information you can’t argue that this is definitely not a meme.
Yeah, comic only laugh. Funny funny or else why? Why comic if no funny? Funny pages, comics, funny /s
Dude, comics can be whatever the fuck you want. Want to make a comic that’s just four panels of an unmoving rock? Still a comic. And there’s no reason why anyone should question otherwise.
Between this and all the “how is this a meme?” comments. Most inane, useless comments. Maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t meant for you? Clearly it’s getting upvotes
Want to make a comic that’s just four panels of an unmoving rock? Still a comic.
Sure, except that would be a somewhat shitty comic and anyone would have the right to say that if that’s their opinion.
Between this and all the “how is this a meme?” comments. Most inane, useless comments. Maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t meant for you? Clearly it’s getting upvotes
Maybe my comment wasn’t meant for you if it bothers you this much? Just move on bro.
Let me help you.
The comic, as many other do, revolves around the final panel where the character portrayed wandering in a state of frustration comes to the somewhat paradoxical conclusion that landlords, that supposedly provide housing, do the opposite.
It’s political, but also plays on the relatableness of the situation and has a certain quirky dinamicity to it, with changes of location, gesturing and inbalanced poses.
Its effect on some people is best summaryzed as “it’s funny because it’s true”.
It’s 4 sentences with a hard hitting message. This doesn’t need to be in a comic 🤪
Nothing needs to be anywhere.
Oh, I mean you’re not wrong. Let me adjust my message:
I dislike this comic, not because of the message, but because it is in the form of a comic. Personally, I think it’s gimmicky and unnecessary to put this message in a comic. Though, I understand that the person trying to get this message out might use comics as their main platform, which then brings me to understand and respect their decision. Still, the comic adds nothing to the message, and that was my original point.
What should go in paintings?
Corporate landlords specifically.
Single Family Houses – The 5 Biggest Buyers In America
As SFH investors and property managers we may find ourselves bidding on the same property as a major fund. You might get a call from a fund that wants to buy your portfolio. You could end up partnering with a fund as its local operator. You never know.
Phoenix was the first city that had just about all the major private equity firms investing in single family houses. Private equity helped drive prices in Phoenix up by 34% as you can read about in this Bloomberg article here. The next city that attracted just about all the major private equity firms was Atlanta GA. Other popular markets are CA, Chicago and Florida. PE firms are looking for markets that have experienced the biggest bubbles that have resulted in the biggest swings in values.
We call those non-linear markets. The goal is to hold properties as rentals and wait for a housing recovery. These funds are averaging about an 8% return on investment where most major multi-family / apartment funds return about 5 or 6%. Linear markets like Tulsa OK, Louisville KY, Indianapolis IN, Fort Worth TX, Columbus OH, and Kansas City have been some what over looked by the biggest players. However, there are plenty of funds coming into the linear markets with up to $50 million (which is considered a small fund) to spend on houses.
so are you advocating for zero private ownership of houses?
like what’s the policy proposal?
I do kind of like that other comment, " nobody gets a second house until everybody gets their first".
All of it should be public property.
100% tax on the value of land is the policy proposal. It makes economic sense, would let us abolish regressive taxes on labor and sales, would incentivize more abundant housing. Seriously. This is the solution.
how?
a one-time 100% tax on the value of the land?
how does that change anything except make landowning less accessible to everyone except those born wealthy.
or is that the point, that you want nobody to own land at all?
I think I need some more context here
Sorry if I was unclear. It would happen continuously, over time. So like monthly or yearly, just like rent to a landlord.
no worries, this is a paradigm shift, lots of details to get lost in.
so you would pay 100% of the value of your property annually?
how?
how would those property values be estimated?
I don’t see how anyone could have a home if they had to pay multiple times their yearly salary every year.
This is a socialist sub so yeah no more private ownership of property would be nice
I have a house. My parents have a house. At some point they die. I now have 2 houses…?
You sell one would be the point here.
And how do people pay for that? How would it be different from today? What stops people from buying one now that would not stop them in that case?
I merely explained you the view of those you are talking with, I’m not well versed on the topic.
Luckily, the answer to your question is once again easy to derive from what the other people are saying: the price would drop to a reasonable price if houses got stripped of their role as a form of investment.
Or rather, as it’s often the case in this day and age, if the selfish return of a profit was weighted against the damage to the community and found not to be desirable.
The solution is to just define that the price is low, okay. So are there still incentives to upgrade, maintain etc. a property when the value is low anyway? Is the money you spend on something thrown out of the window as soon as it is installed on the house? What about great locations, how to value those? So all the things that already apply to the housing market, how do you want to circumvent all of these factors that go into the value of a property/house?
You keep thinking I’m the herald of this position…
I guess there’s two solution, the pragmatical approach is that people aware of the issue increase the offer on the market. The market is still a market so all you are saying still applies but it sees a rise in offer.
The other, more idealistic but also, ideal, is government intervention so basically you get to set up the rules any way it make sense on the principle of putting a roof above everybody.
All this aside, do you fix or upgrade the place you live in simply so that you can sell it at a higher price? I do this stuff because… That’s where I live?
The main driving factor is this “down payment” shit. A person who has a bunch of money can just go get a house and not actually pay for it fully. They can still loose all that money, there’s risk there if they can’t pay. And that’s the difference. Everyone else can’t put down that much money. So they can pay a landlord more money than the landlord pays monthly, but they don’t have 2 or $300,000 bucks at risk each and every day. I mean, the landlord is payed for the risk they incur.
So a renter only loses a small amount of money if they fail to keep paying rent. However, they pay more each month and also, they loose relatively more when they loose housing and become homeless. So the situation is fucked up. You could for example barely own a house and then stretch and buy a second house with not much left in savings. If you’re in that situation, you’re a different landlord than a bank who basically only incurs a monetary risk and not a loosing everything you got risk.
Because of this. Maybe we should bring down the “down payment” bar shit. I mean the house could be destroyed by a renter or an owner, but the house will still be there. Banks literally can only lose a little bit of time between ownerships. So if you could purchase a house with just $5000, for example, that would be pretty easy to do for most people who have a job. At least relatively much easier to $300k. You can sell your house to the bank and get yourself a new house. Literally nobody loses if the down payment level is lowered to something reasonable. Ultimately, the banks will always own houses. So why not just state it clearly…you don’t own this house but if you had 3 lifetimes, you could. And bring down the payments accordingly to people’s income. Keep it locked at 10%. If we did this, what would prevent you from owning a mansion? Okay limit housing to reasonable sizes? Control traffic by only allowing people to own near where they work? So you live 1 mile from work and then you find a new job, congratulations! Now you can be part of the people who can buy near that area.
I don’t know nothing. I’m just posting some stupid ass ideas.
Housing is still wildly speculative in pricing: detangle housing from investment, and people could actually afford to own homes
Youre right and, to add insult to injury, everyone, including those who do not own property, ensures that house prices always rise.
We’re all paying for the increase in value but fewer and fewer are enjoying the rewards.
And the main factor driving down payments is housing prices, which are driven by landlords. Less landlords > less scarcity > lower prices > lower down payments.
On top of that, housing cooperatives exist, which can provide the benefits of renting (lower monthly payments than a mortgage, economy of scale for repairs & construction, less financial liability for the individual) without the negative effects of a for-profit landlord. (you progressively own more of your unit over time instead of never owning any of it, you pay lower monthly rates than you would to a for-profit entity)
They even have different ownership models, which could give more choice for pricing. For instance, the non-ownership model means you pay a lower rate, just the cost of continuing the providing and upkeep of the housing, with no additional profit margin, but you don’t end up owning any of the unit you live in. But the ownership model means often paying a bit higher pricing, but in turn, getting to actually own the unit you live in, and later sell it off if you wish to move. (some cooperatives have caps on how much higher you can sell it for compared to your purchase price, others do not)
But in the end, the one thing that makes housing more expensive, that outbids cooperatives for housing, and that increases the scarcity of the market, is for-profit landlords.
The only way you get any true positive change on down payments, housing prices, or housing availability, is to completely ban all for-profit landlording.
If we could ban the for profit landlording that still leaves one big ass hole…asshole if you will. People keep making more people, so who builds their houses? Who pays for their land so they can start their own progressive path to ownership? And I totally agree with this. You should only make enough money to re-paint or re-roof etc. Maybe these things could be a type of insurance like the insurance you buy when you purchase a house with a low down payment.
People keep making more people
Eventually, people stop needing housing, or their housing needs can be met by a ceramic pot on a shelf. The house they used to need becomes available for someone else.
People keep making more people, so who builds their houses?
Developers. If there is more demand in a market, they will build property, then sell it to whoever is willing to buy, or, will seek funding from an existing institution, which if it’s not landlords, will be housing cooperatives, then use that funding to finance new buildings. Traditionally, when we’re talking high-density housing, the buyer of these properties is a landlord. Without that landlord, the demand still exists, and someone, or some group of people, will inevitably fund the cost of the housing. In a world with no for-profit landlords, housing cooperatives fill in the gaps. (primarily for high-density housing specifically)
Either existing cooperative members come to an agreement to pay slightly higher rents in order to build up a fund used to later purchase and expand their pool of housing, (which later increases the benefit they receive from economies of scale, and reduces risk of a major issue in one building causing a lack of revenue altogether) or a new cooperative is formed with money pooled from members, and once a specific threshold is met, they collectively purchase the property.
Housing is a good with inelastic demand. Everyone needs housing. There will always be someone, or some group of people willing to buy. And if you don’t have landlords to artificially increase the price of housing, which only goes up so quickly because of its commodification, and further purchasing by for-profit landlords, then the overall cost for a cooperative to outright buy a new property, or for a new cooperative to raise the funds required, is substantially lowered.
It parallels the Vimes Boot Theory. I like where your head is at.
Losing* :/
deleted by creator
I don’t really want to pay for a house and experience all the expenses that come with it. Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you, and it doesn’t involve paying whoever comes to fix your stuff.
Additionally, owning a house would basically anchor me to one location, which gives me less flexibility as a digital nomad.
If you value home equity then buying a house is definitely ideal. But this isn’t the case for everyone.
…oh, sorry. I forgot this is Lemmy and that you can’t have a different opinion under any circumstance. My bad!
Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you
Your rent is quite literally paying for the maintenance. You think landlords are just losing money on maintenance out of the good of their own hearts? Of course not, it’s just all bundled up and averaged out into one price with your rent.
owning a house would basically anchor me to one location, which gives me less flexibility as a digital nomad.
Cool, that’s one of many benefits of housing cooperatives. They can act similarly to a landlord in terms of you sharing the cost of repairs with the whole building, which reduces risk, and they don’t have a profit motive, since they’re non-profits, so rent is lower than with a landlord. Some even let your rent buy you equity in your unit, which you can then sell later to get some of your money back if you decide to move, much better than the for-profit landlord that will give you nothing. The only issue is, these cooperatives are repeatedly outbid by corporate landlords, which means there’s far fewer of them than would be ideal.
Additionally, I’ve seen some startups like Cohere that seem like they’ll eventually be able to give you even more flexibility, allowing you to move between units in various locations without having to sell the old one or file annoying paperwork to start a new lease, with at least somewhat cooperative ownership. (although, of course, this is a for profit company, which isn’t as ideal)
I can definitely understand wanting flexibility, but there are ways to get that which don’t involve overpaying to a for-profit landlord. I can understand not caring much about equity, but of course, that’s why non-ownership housing cooperatives exist.
But to actually make those things more widely available, you need to reduce the market power held by for-profit landlords. If they did not exist, these alternatives, primarily the cooperatives, could fill back in the gaps, but provide lower prices, better service, actual equity for those who want it, and still keep the flexibility you get from renting.
Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you, and it doesn’t involve paying whoever comes to fix your stuff.
Those costs are almost certainly built into your rent. It’s not free. You also risk the landlord just not fixing things.
If the landlord doesn’t fix things you stop paying rent. At least in countries with strong regulations (Mietminderung in Germany).
They’ll probably start eviction proceedings if you stop paying rent. They may also do other unpleasant things to make the apartment unlivable.
In the US the law is generally not cheap and not on the side of the poor.
Thus “in countries with strong regulations”…
True, although likely spread over a longer period of time and over multiple tenants. You’re not paying for the new roof after just renting a couple of years for example.
Where I live, the break-even point is about 3 years last I checked where it’s cheaper to rent assuming you could buy if you wanted to (realtor fees are a part of this since they essentially run a cartel, speaking of parasites…). That’s assuming no major maintenance needed otherwise that changes the math.
however if a pipe freezes it’s (generally) on the landlord to fix and pay for the repairs.
Really depends, either insurance fully covers it, or the resident is at fault in most jurisdictions. The landlord would only cover it if they had no current renter and they had terrible insurance. Pipes freezing is an entirely predictable and easily preventable thing outside an act of God.
bold of you to assume the pipes are insulated enough to not freeze without moving water constantly
It’s okay that you don’t want to own a house. Those are legitimate practical concerns that you bring up. Certainly renting comes with some conveniences, like being able to move, not having to worry about utilities, repairs etc. (although, if you have a bad landlord, you may still have to worry about that stuff)
But at the end of the day, you are still paying for someone else’s ownership of an asset and thereby increasing their wealth at the expense of your own. They are leveraging your need for shelter to increase their own personal wealth. It’s not about the pros and cons of renting vs buying. It’s about the inherently unequal material relationship between you and your landlord.
If there are alternate options for renting a place, then I’m open to hear it. As of now, though, simply walking up to someone and asking to rent their place seems like the easier and more straightforward option.
I am only speaking from experience here. I understand the situation varies from person to person. I’m not personally concerned with my own wealth. I have found apartments with comfortable monthly rent, and I have found places that don’t seem to have a fair rent that I’ve quickly moved out of. I can afford groceries and save a bit for some personal expenses. So far, I have had no negative experiences with any landlord I’ve rented from despite the rent pricing.
If it’s the idea of landlords owning places and offering them for rent that people here are bothered about, then I’m not sure I understand their perspective. I respect it nonetheless, but I suppose I am just not as frustrated as most people are with the situation
If there are alternate options for renting a place, then I’m open to hear it.
Public housing. Well funded, well run, public housing. Rip out the profit motive.
You probably have to remove all the conservatives from power first because they ideologically do not want a government that does good things.
Also probably repeal faircloth, which arbitrarily limits how much public housing there can be.
how does public housing work? will is shove some standard rules down our throats? will it prevent alternative payment methods such as food?
There are many options. “Shove down throats” is kind of a gross metaphor. Do you think fire codes are also shoved down throats?
https://www.marketplace.org/2021/05/03/in-vienna-public-housing-is-affordable-and-desirable/
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/public-housing-success/406561/ (paywall removed: https://archive.is/LkuFR )
I’m not sure what barter has to do with the topic
Do you think fire codes are also shoved down throats?
I was mostly thinking about the housing all preventing the same pets, having the same noise rules, and having the same non-ideal internet.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Yeah, we’re speaking on different terms here. I have also had a good overall experience renting, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with crux of the issue, which is that landlords exploit a renter’s need for shelter at their own personal gain. We rationalize this by claiming things like “well, the landlord offers a service,” but not really, because for the most part the landlord does not need to do any work, they just need to invest money, which in turn increases the value of their property, anyways. Everything they do increases their own personal wealth. That’s not to mention the concentration of wealth and power that landlords perpetuate.
This isn’t to say all landlords are bad people. We are all taught to make our money work for us, to try to achieve passive income, etc. in order to get out of the rat race. That doesn’t change the fact that the relationships that landlords and renting creates are inherently unequal and therefore wrong.
the relationships that landlords and renting creates are inherently unequal and therefore wrong
I don’t think I agree with your conclusion here. Some relationships are going to be inherently unequal, and that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. Take the doctor-patient relationship as an example. If I’m in need of life saving medical care, the doctor has far more power in that relationship. For me it’s “buy or die” while for him, not treating me has essentially no negative consequences. This relationship isn’t “wrong”, it’s just unequal due to its nature.
With landlords (and with the medical industry), it’s not that the relationship is inherently wrong, it’s just extremely open to abuse due to that unequal nature. It’s the abuse that’s wrong, not the relationship itself.
I’ll have to think about that…you may be right.
Although, the doctor-patient relationship does come up fairly often in anarchist thought. I think it falls under “justified hierarchy.” In this case, it is justified because the relationship is meant to end equally (ie the patient is cured, and the inequality between doctor-patient ends). Similar with parent-child, teacher-student relationships.
But your point about unequal relationships not being inherently wrong still stands…gotta think about it! thanks
I understand the issue. I suppose I’m just not as concerned as the people in this forum are. When I saw this meme I was only thinking about the practicality of renting vs owning a place. I can see why most people are upset about my view of things, but then I was already aware people would be downrating me for showing my perspective. Regardless I felt like i needed to express my opinion nonetheless. I see a lot of these on my homepage
I think people are just upset you don’t align ideologically with them, even if you’re not necessarily ideologically opposite. Plus we’re in Lefty Memes, so I think many of them probably expect you to be ideologically in-line. I wouldn’t take it to heart. But if you find yourself interested, The Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin has some really good thoughts about land ownership, and kinda pushes back against many of the ideas we are brought up in today.
Edit: Oh! here it is online http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html
Yeah, I expected this to happen so I’m indifferent about the negative replies. Thanks for the recommendation though, I’ll start to give it a read on my break.
Ok, I’m genuinely confused. Without some kind of landlord, how can people live in homes they don’t want to own? Would the state or the federal government own, maintain, and rent out unowned homes? Or would there be a free-for-all of free abandoned homes and if you want to live in one, you’d be responsible for making it livable? Or…?
Well, I can’t summarize all the possible alternatives, because I don’t realistically know all of them or all their pros and cons. Certainly one of them is communal-style state-owned housing. Another would be the more free-for-all style you describe, with an emphasis on mutual aid, I’d imagine. That’s probably the one I’d go for, because I tend to think the state is generally an oppressive force. Ultimately though our idea of private ownership of land would probably have to go out the window.
You should check out Pyotr Kropotkin’s chapter in The Conquest of Bread on Dwellings, really good book overall: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html
EVERY capitalist thing exploits your need for something you don’t have.
Don’t have a big enough car to move all of your stuff? You rent one.
Don’t have your own lawnmower? You hire someone to provide the service.
Don’t have a tool to repair your car? You rent it.
Literally, that’s the whole point. They’re leveraging something they have (that might have some difficulty to obtain) - to make money from it. We do it with everything.
That’s literally what services are too - you renting someone’s knowledge to do something you don’t have the expertise or tools to do. It’s literally the founding center of trade.
When I say need, I’m talking about hard needs. Food, shelter, medical care, etc.
I don’t consider any of the things that you list as a need (yes, a person may need those things in the moment, but they are not human needs. Those are where the moral argument, for me, comes into play)
But you are right, capitalism is essentially the interaction between a buyers demand for something and an owners supply.
Those are human needs, sure - but those things still take resources to make. Take away all of civilization, and everyone since the dawn of time has had to put in effort to be able to attain those things. I agree with, and understand the need to ensure that housing is affordable – but I don’t think scapegoating landlords is the way to go about doing it. It’s the same thing the right does with blaming immigrants for takin’ der jerrbs.
I’d much rather blame the government for not putting guardrails on the practice, or not spending our tax dollars in making affordable housing. If we can have HOAs, surely we can get the government to build housing, and sell it to single-families with stipulations that ownership can only ever be put in a single-family’s name, etc. That would drive down demand, also driving down prices.
That’s the whole deal with abortions now too - LINE MUST GO UP!! – they don’t care about children, they care about making line go up. If line keeps going up though, things are unaffordable.
Hell, remember $15/hr min wage? If we carried that with inflation, everyone would be making $25/hr MINIMUM today. If everyone was making $25/hr minimum, houses would look a lot more affordable to us. There’s a whole plethora of abuses we need to be tackling.
Its true that shelter, food, and health require some level of labor, but I don’t think that justifies small numbers of individuals controlling the means of producing those things or the ownership of the things, themselves, and then withholding them from others unless they are compensated. I don’t think its true that everyone has to put in effort to attain these things – I mean look at the very young and the very old! They shouldnt have to be put to work in order to be housed, clothed, fed, cured. I’d argue, in fact, the exact opposite of what you said – that humans have collectively worked together since the dawn of time to ensure children and elderly are taken care of, and people are fed, clothed, sheltered, etc. and in many cases, those societies had no concept of ownership or money, at all.
I do take a bit of umbrage with your wording about scapegoating landlords and comparing them to immigrants. I’d be really hesitant to compare those who have a high amount of power with those who have almost no power, at all. Scapegoating would imply that landlords do no damage to renters, when they in fact extract wealth from them for the enrichment of the landlord, while also wielding power over them in the form of eviction.
We are talking on two different planes, though, so I do understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re looking at things from a very practical and real-world standpoint, whereas I’m thinking more in theoretical, or maybe philosophical sense. I don’t think we agree ultimately but I appreciate you taking the time to write that
You don’t need landlords for non-ownership and temporary housing solutions to exist.
The problem isn’t Lemmy, the problem is your insistence on remaining under a boot, and clear unwillingness to explore options beyond your existing and narrow (E: and indoctrinated by capitalism) view of the world.
For what its worth, they are not speaking on the same subject as you and I doubt they have even thought about material relationships in the same way you have. They just see buying vs renting and the practicalities of each, but not the implications on the relationship between renter and owner.
I doubt they see themselves as under a boot (I mean, I know I didn’t think that when I started renting) or that they are indoctrinated by capital. We all gotta start learning this shit somewhere. I mean I get it: Once you realize that the rat race is bullshit, it’s easy to get upset at others who are still running as if it is legitimate. But most of us were running at one point. When you lead people out, it’s gotta come from a softer place than “you are indoctrinated and live under a boot.”
That’s exactly my point. Thank you for understanding.
or that they are indoctrinated by capital.
We all are, and that you think some people aren’t is something you should really consider with yourself.
And while I can agree with the first part, you’ve really got to check your privilege on the second.
I have all the time in the world for people who actually want to learn and know more, this person doesn’t strike me as being there, and I currently have better things to do with my time and emotional labour than spoon feed them information they’re not interested in hearing. I have no issue being blunt with people who need a slap in the face from reality.
If you have the free time and energy to bang your head against a brick wall, you be my guest, but you don’t get to decide how I spend mine.
You make a lot of assumptions for someone who is apparently willing to patiently “spoon feed” information, lol.
What a mean-spirited comment! Why would anyone listen to what you have to say when you talk to people this way? Its a shame, but hey, if you enjoy talking to people like that, I guess be my guest. I’d rather meet people where they are. Have a great day
You don’t need landlords for non-ownership and temporary housing solutions to exist.
For example…
You’re not wrong, you’re just not participating in the same conversation.
Like if someone says “Hey, Disney World is an abusive and corrupt enterprise” and you reply “But I like going to Disney World and I don’t want to close it down”.
There should be a way to address the problems without abolishing the whole thing.
But if we can’t even admit the problems because we’re afraid of where it will lead, we’re never going to improve anything.
You’re right. I suppose I should just read into it more. I was just frustrated that I’ve been seeing these frequently on my homepage and felt like I had to comment
I can understand that.
There are very real problems with the rental situation in the US, even for people who prefer renting, but the news seems to only talk about the frustration of home-buyers-in-waiting constantly getting scooped by corporate investors.
There’s significant overlap in these problems, of course, but it’s not fair or productive to paint all renters as “failed home-buyers”, even if it seems like it should bolster the movement by inflating the numbers.
Fuck off, landlords don’t do shit and look for every opportunity to screw you out of your deposit. sounds like you’re defending your own scummy kind.
Correct, how dare you! Landlord bad! They want something in return for providing something, how dare they!
Providing what?
Yes, landlord bad for invariably doing a low quality repair job repeatedly, the money they make off multi tenant units is way more than they pay for a lowest bidder service call.
That’s some low quality thinking, @Eheran@lemmy.world
