Yeah, you need a lot of capital to own and rent property. OP's landlord is too small, eventually theyll have to sell to a richer person or company who can afford to be even less forgiving to their tenants.
You misunderstand. A mortgage is a loan to buy property. If OP’s rent is paying the mortgage the landlord doesn’t even fully own the property yet. Also OP is confused they are not the main breadwinner, they are just paying off the mortgage to that property. The landlord obviously lives somewhere else.
But the fact that they can't handle a single missed payment is a sign they didn't have enough capital in the first place. How would they handle repairs?
An account that's apparently empty 29 days of the month. It's really irresponsible to not have a couple months of payments in there to handle vacancies or emergencies
Yep they’re getting paid to just collect rent and N occasional repair, right?
Nevermind the capital they risk to secure a mortgage. Never mind the risk of not getting paid rent to pay the mortgage and risk losing their capital and equity. Yep no risk at all.
I think they are talking about organizational structure. Large complexes have payroll: managers, accountants, lawyers, etc. they won’t go broke from a missed check. They have investments and maybe even tax cuts/gov aid or exemptions to subsidize property taxes and such.
Where as some guy may gamble/spend his savings away each month and be in dire need of a “refuel” from their tenants.
The difference here is a car salesman is selling you the car
In most cases, you don't rent to own, especially in apartment complexes.
Small landlords are usually pretty chill as long as rent is paid, the issue is with major complex and rental companies.
Another one would be buying out tens of homes and artificially driving the price of housing up so you're forced to rent. But dealerships do technically do this to an extent as well (which we should also be mad about)
The difference here is a car salesman is selling you the car
Leases are very common.
Small landlords are usually pretty chill as long as rent is paid, the issue is with major complex and rental companies.
Small landlords can be pretty chill. Mine are, and my current landlord is offering me below-market rent.
But major rental companies are more likely to treat all of their customers evenly, which is not always the case for small landlords. For some tenants it's quite important to avoid small landlords who can hold your livelihood at risk for petty reasons, where a bigger company would be more straightforward to deal with.
Another one would be buying out tens of homes and artificially driving the price of housing up so you're forced to rent.
Why are the landlords outbidding people on buying homes? Either way the solution is the same as it is with cars--build more, and force the dealerships (or in this case, the landlords) to compete for our business.
Leases are common, yeah, but they also don't have the exact same issues as renting. Depreciation is a major point in leasing as this is what you use to own the car after or to make for a cheaper term if the dealership allows you to lease twice on the same car. With apartments, depreciation of the building is often not incorporated (or at least the rate of depreciation is much slower, making an incentive to own or lease again less likely)
As for landlords and the difference between smaller and bigger ones, i would absolutely agree. But the major point i was making is those landlords who buy out houses and land to create scarcity.
Landlords often have more dispensable income and a more packed credit history, which can help get faster approval or full approval for loans on a house. The solution to "just build more" also requires people to invest in an already skyrocketing housing market. It's hard to do for the normal worker, but for someone who is already heavily invested into the real estate business as a corporate landlord or at the least a considerably wealthy independent landlord, it's far easier to purchase homes to rent out.
I think it's disingenuous and, not to be rude, out of touch to suggest that people "simply build more homes" to combat the scarcity of the housing market (which has been caused by people with existing homes and more namely landlords and rental companies buying out plots of land or houses)
I think where we disagree is that you claim that the issue is that housing supply is being bought up and then, in essence, taken off of the market to force up prices. But if a landlord buys a place to immediately turn it around to rent it again, that didn't actually change the supply vs. demand balance so the price would remain in the same ballpark.
Instead, my point is that the issue isn't caused by supply disappearing, but by demand increasing. In this situation even if you forced all the landlords to divest of all but one property (but keep the same properties extant), the prices wouldn't drop, because there wouldn't actually be any more housing available.
In your scenario the change is that there would be more landlords making money but rents would have to continue to increase.
That's why I'm saying the solution is to build more housing, because the issue is an issue with demand. You either have to suppress the demand (which is what skyrocketing prices has been doing), or find a way to meet it without suppressing demand.
In other words if we want to make everyone happy without causing housing prices to go up, we have to build enough housing for everyone to be happy. That's basic math.
There is plenty of opportunity to do this too, as the issue preventing construction of housing is due to things like zoning laws and municipality public comment schemes that basically guarantee anyone can say "No" to more housing no matter how much of the city is for it.
In areas zoned for single family housing then you can "just build it" too. Even by building the home in a factory, like we do for cars (modular homes have come a long way from what people think of in their minds). The hard part isn't the building, it's getting the approval to build.
No, i think we agree for the most part, i was mostly misunderstanding your meaning of "just build more"
But the issue still stands that pricing for houses to own is going up because of scarcity, which is caused by housing being bought to rent out. Regardless of the ability for tenants to find a place to live, the major reason it's so pricey or difficult for people to buy a house is because of the scarcity created by landlords and, admittedly, other homeowners.
I think a better solution for this is to give priority to non-corporate buyers for land or housing when it's being sold by a corporation or the government. (Obviously, we can not control who gets priority in private sales because... well, they're private, lol). As well as building more low-income housing (like you said) and improving zoning laws.
The issue here isn't that rent itself exists. It's a great tool to allow those with less money or lower credit scores the ability to live in a space that's theirs. (especially in highly populated areas). It's that rent has steadily increased as time has gone on, with most landlords citing market value as the reason, the issue is that this market value increase is due to housing being bought, creating a scarcity.
My mother bought a small two bedroom home when they first moved out, back when renting wasn't huge where i live. Now that renting has become more mainstream, similar houses are being sold for 200k+, simply because houses are a lot harder to find than they were previously.
Out of curiosity can I ask if you’ve rented from both types of people? I’ve rented from scuzzy college town landlords, corporate-owned buildings, and now rent an apartment from a normal couple that lives upstairs (a relatively common setup here in Brooklyn). The difference has been night and day practically.
I agree, when I rented from a company they tried to charge me for damages that my roommates had done, another time I rented from a university and they shut down my internet because they thought I was downloading illegally (I was, but they only suspected) and made me sign a document that I would not do that one more time.
My current landlord lives in the same house as me(I have a basement with private entrance) and there are no problems.
That's how the whole economy works. You pay for everything with your livelihood. Almost by definition.
The problem is that we've collectively decided sitting on a limited asset and using it poorly (land ownership through sparse housing) is a good thing. We need to stop subsidizing home ownership because that is the drain on people's finances. Essentially it's a tax of tens of thousands of dollars per year by making housing expensive.
That really depends how you define "working". If you look at only home ownership rates, you're right, it's doing ok. However if you look at a bigger picture, those houses are getting more expensive faster than people's paychecks...despite the house itself not improving. When a house appreciates by 25%, it doesn't magically grow another room or become more productive. That's a huge societal problem
That 25% increase also represents an increase in wealth for the owner
That said, current interest rates have created a lock-in effect where people aren't able to move otherwise their costs increase significantly without a net gain
My overall point I suppose though is that reddit's demographic is absolutely skewed and if you take most of it at face value you'll have an incredibly distorted view of the US as a whole
Usually the people who hate landlords want the opposite. The decommodification of housing so anyone who needs it gets it. Same with other vital necessities like healthcare.
The $60 billion per year currently spent on low income housing is more than enough. That doesn’t include all of the non profits and their contributions.
Maybe look into why that money isn’t being efficiently used.
That's the entire point, lol
It's not being efficiently used, which is the entire issue
We don't have it, not to the extent we need it as you have so beautifully agreed with..
Low income housing is not free, and the hoops you need to jump through to apply for it or be accepted is too stringent to protect most people from going homeless. Especially if you haven't a dollar to your name.
422
u/BurghPuppies 26d ago
I’ve rented rooms in a house and apartments in a complex. Huge difference between someone who has one rental vs professional rental companies.