To play Devil’s Advocate, the people would only still live there without risk of inescapable debt if they had the qualifications to obtain a loan and pay down payment, as well as means to continue making payments until the property sells again or is paid off. Getting evicted by a landlord sucks but it’s still way better than owing the bank money because they can and will come after you for it.
On the flip side, though, you can still get equity from paying a mortgage, so it’s possible to sell the property and if it sells fast enough you could pay off the loan without excess interest during hard times.
Buying property comes with risks that renting properties do not have.
I am so tired of the argument that “renters can’t afford to buy the property.”
Is the landlord making a profit? If Rent - Costs = Profit then the people who can afford the rent can afford the costs, and the money that would have been profit for the landlord can instead be savings for emergencies (that the landlord would have paid out of the same funds while still making a profit.)
If renters can continuously pay rent without ever missing a payment for years then yes clearly they could afford a home, but most US Citizens cannot even cover the down payment. Also, most renters end up missing payments pretty frequently. The system needs to change in a way that guarantees homes, but landlords also aren’t inherently in the wrong.
The system is broken, I agree. That doesn’t excuse the people taking advantage of the broken system.
People regularly vilify scalping (buying something of limited availability and reselling it for a profit) but for some reason when someone does that with shelter, a thing necessary for survival, we get people defending them.
That’s exactly the problem. You’re conflating renting out property with scalping. You’re saying that Rental Owners are all villains, every single one, and that the world we currently live in would be better without them completely. That’s stupid. That just seems like somebody has oversimplified a complicated socioeconomic issue using emotions like fear and hate, and is using that as justification to lose faith in a democratic institution of laws.
I am defending rental properties, I think it as a concept still exists even in a perfect future, because it enables travelers and low-cost living communities on a larger scale while also allowing specializations for maintenance. I think there are some good people renting out full sized homes for barely enough to cover mortgage and maintenance, and I think a lot of renters probably wouldn’t be able to handle that sort of responsibility on their own and would end up losing their homes and money.
If I’m understanding you correctly, I disagree. Homeowners aren’t providing a service to renters by allowing them to live “risk free”. The “risk” that a homeowner is incurring is the risk of becoming a renter, same as the risk that an owner of a company incurs is just the risk of having to become a worker.
If the place you’re renting gets struck by lightning and burns down, or you go to prison and it falls into disrepair, or the properties get raided and seized for some reason: you can just start over at a new place. The person who bought that building, on the other hand, loses maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely plunging them deep into debt which is still accruing interest.
That’s true; the landowner is certainly worse off losing property, especially compared to the renter, because the former owned property in the first place. The renter didn’t even have an opportunity to fall like the landowner. They don’t even have enough to lose. I’m not entirely sympathetic to a person who profits off another person’s need for shelter.
We have to fight for our right to be paying the bank for property that no longer exists for the next 30 years. Every human being deserves a chance to suffer this hardship. /sarcasm
I’m not certain I understand this comment, but from the tone it sounds like we’re not on the same page. Nonetheless, I would regard property-owning a privilege rather than a hardship, and that just because a person who owns property has more to lose, doesn’t suddenly make them noble putting that property at risk for the sake of gaining more.
Insurance isn’t a magic fix-all, mate. Also, lmao, I was implying that if any of those three things happened to the property owner it would be worse off, yet you failed to parse that and instead construed something about renters being criminals? Bro those were your words, and I think you’re wrong to think that way about renters.
To play Devil’s Advocate, the people would only still live there without risk of inescapable debt if they had the qualifications to obtain a loan and pay down payment, as well as means to continue making payments until the property sells again or is paid off. Getting evicted by a landlord sucks but it’s still way better than owing the bank money because they can and will come after you for it.
On the flip side, though, you can still get equity from paying a mortgage, so it’s possible to sell the property and if it sells fast enough you could pay off the loan without excess interest during hard times.
Buying property comes with risks that renting properties do not have.
I am so tired of the argument that “renters can’t afford to buy the property.”
Is the landlord making a profit? If Rent - Costs = Profit then the people who can afford the rent can afford the costs, and the money that would have been profit for the landlord can instead be savings for emergencies (that the landlord would have paid out of the same funds while still making a profit.)
If renters can continuously pay rent without ever missing a payment for years then yes clearly they could afford a home, but most US Citizens cannot even cover the down payment. Also, most renters end up missing payments pretty frequently. The system needs to change in a way that guarantees homes, but landlords also aren’t inherently in the wrong.
The system is broken, I agree. That doesn’t excuse the people taking advantage of the broken system.
People regularly vilify scalping (buying something of limited availability and reselling it for a profit) but for some reason when someone does that with shelter, a thing necessary for survival, we get people defending them.
That’s exactly the problem. You’re conflating renting out property with scalping. You’re saying that Rental Owners are all villains, every single one, and that the world we currently live in would be better without them completely. That’s stupid. That just seems like somebody has oversimplified a complicated socioeconomic issue using emotions like fear and hate, and is using that as justification to lose faith in a democratic institution of laws.
I am defending rental properties, I think it as a concept still exists even in a perfect future, because it enables travelers and low-cost living communities on a larger scale while also allowing specializations for maintenance. I think there are some good people renting out full sized homes for barely enough to cover mortgage and maintenance, and I think a lot of renters probably wouldn’t be able to handle that sort of responsibility on their own and would end up losing their homes and money.
Housing can be affordable or profitable, not both.
Not how businesses work. After expenses, they can make a loss for the fiscal year. It happens a lot more often than you think.
If you don’t like overcharging in the industry then you should be advocating rent control and proper taxation, not landlord fitted guillotines.
Ah yes, if I’m against landlords I must be arguing in favour of killing all landlords.
You sound like a reasonable person to continue having a conversation with…
stop!
You’ve Violated The Law!
If I’m understanding you correctly, I disagree. Homeowners aren’t providing a service to renters by allowing them to live “risk free”. The “risk” that a homeowner is incurring is the risk of becoming a renter, same as the risk that an owner of a company incurs is just the risk of having to become a worker.
If the place you’re renting gets struck by lightning and burns down, or you go to prison and it falls into disrepair, or the properties get raided and seized for some reason: you can just start over at a new place. The person who bought that building, on the other hand, loses maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely plunging them deep into debt which is still accruing interest.
That’s true; the landowner is certainly worse off losing property, especially compared to the renter, because the former owned property in the first place. The renter didn’t even have an opportunity to fall like the landowner. They don’t even have enough to lose. I’m not entirely sympathetic to a person who profits off another person’s need for shelter.
We have to fight for our right to be paying the bank for property that no longer exists for the next 30 years. Every human being deserves a chance to suffer this hardship. /sarcasm
I’m not certain I understand this comment, but from the tone it sounds like we’re not on the same page. Nonetheless, I would regard property-owning a privilege rather than a hardship, and that just because a person who owns property has more to lose, doesn’t suddenly make them noble putting that property at risk for the sake of gaining more.
That’s what insurance is for.
Ah, the classic “all renters are criminals” while opinioning on the “value” landlords provide.
I made a small edit to my last comment might need to refresh
Insurance isn’t a magic fix-all, mate. Also, lmao, I was implying that if any of those three things happened to the property owner it would be worse off, yet you failed to parse that and instead construed something about renters being criminals? Bro those were your words, and I think you’re wrong to think that way about renters.
“I didn’t say they are criminals! I just said what if something exceedingly rare happens to them that only happens to criminals? Checkmate!”
I’ll go really slow for you.
I said if a landlord goes to prison or the property gets raided and seized then it is worse for them than if a renter has the same circuimstance.
Do you see the part where I singled out renters? No? Then where did that come from? You said that. That was you. You stupid mf.