You got a raise? It’s my raise now.
i got rent increase notices immediately after every ‘covid check’ was announced.
Which is why I plan to never move. My rent has never gone up and I keep printing out and signing extensions. I have the laziest landlord ever. Guy can’t even be bothered to raise my rent since that would involve some level of work on his part.
He may just be satisfied with you as a tenant and doesn’t want to raise the price so you will stay. Not every landlord is a dick.
Or he’s just lazy as you said.
I’d second the “not every landlord is a dick”, some will even lower the rent price when the demand goes down even though I continue to rent, not start a new one.
But that’s relatively rare, unfortunately
My mother is like this. She rents out her house for under half it’s market value.
The tenants know they have it good though and do a lot of things that really should be my mother’s responsibility like pay for or do minor repairs when they come up.
I have told my mom that the needs to raise rent at least some because she’s not saving enough for big things that will come up like roof replacement, but she’s terrified of her tenants leaving.
that’s what we used to have here… stable and very reasonable rent for 20 years, through several ownership changes, even. then this last and current one is just your stereotypical greedy landlord,
Were you not on a lease? Lease contracts always lock your rent in for the time period they’re good for.
Some leases lock in yearly increases, though, as part of auto-renewal. The last house I looked to rent included an auto-renewal clause with a fucking 5% annual increase. I noped out even before getting to the part that made me as the renter responsible for replacing the sewer if there was ever a problem with it.
first thing the current landlord did when he bought the building is raise the rent for all tenants… despite everyone having leases–the terms and obligations of existing leases is supposed to transfer to a new owner. but they don’t care, and they 100% would have raised them further (and in addition to the other increases since), had anyone pursued any sort of action against them. we have very little in terms of tenant protection laws here.
How bad is it where you live? Where I’m from that would be a fairly easy small claims court suit for breaxh (or done in bulk, you’d get all the tenants together and do a class action for breach).
They should abolish buy to let mortgages. How is it fair that a renter literally pays for the mortgage by proxy but doesn’t have a stake in the home.
I am not being snarky. Can you explain your comment? I don’t understand what you are saying.
A common landlord technique is putting a minimum down payment on a house and having their renters pay off the morgage. I think the above commenter is saying that it should not be allowed to get a massive loan on a house that you aren’t going to live in.
People (talking mom & pop) should not be able to purchase a home simply for the purpose of renting it out.
I agree with that.
The problem is the reason people do that is because of a few things.
- The ROI is absolutely retarded. My last house (I live in don’t rent) I made 800k in 10 years. That’s insane. Find me an index that turns 500k into 1.3mil in 10 years
- Passive income if you don’t do shit that landlords should be doing like regular maintenance.
The bourgeoisie loves this one neat trick: just let a few of the poors own a little something, and they’ll fight off the rest of the poors without even needing to be told.
Seriously though, anyone want to sell out a generation for a bit of land and monies? I mean, you’ll never be able to pay for unnecessary things with just values and integrity
I will go to my grave that society writ large is broken. It’s not just the rich. Everyone has become a selfish turd out to get a buck on the backs of everyone else. The difference is that some of us are self-aware enough to see it in ourselves.
It’s depressing if you don’t step back and laugh at it all.
This is just whataboutism thou. Are you a landlord?
Yes and I charge well under market value (like $500 under what I could get) and my tenant does not have to live on the street. Would you rather I kick her out or let her live in my house for free?
You are trying to pass the idea that society is already broken so everybody should just do what the fuck they want. Your are part of the side of society that is actually broken, so all your tirade sounds pretty hypocritical.
S&P 500 did better than that in the last 10 years. I really hate that housing has gone the way it has, because on average it’s not as insanely profitable comparable to other asset classes as people make it out to be, it’s pretty comparable.
I wish it wasn’t comparable though, because we’re just parking a ton of cash to do nothing with it.
Capitalism is dumb.
True except it’s a little different than equity investments because of the ease of leverage. No one is going to loan me a half million dollars to invest in the S&P500 but they’ll have no problem giving me a house to rent out (if I can prove income).
Yeah that’s true
I don’t think the mom and pops are really the problem (in fact, this is I think one of the few viable ways for regular people to actually get ahead) but all of the things surrounding housing. One can get place renting for $2k, but can’t get approved for that mortgage amount even with tons of history showing it’s paid. Corporations owning massive amounts of property are also a much bigger problem. Appealing to an individual (mom and pop) is generally a lot easier than to try to appeal to a corp in which you’re just Lessee #4949857 who’s spreadsheet tells them to squeeze you for more money because.
Past that, I’d also argue renters need much more support when it comes to their rights because quite a lot of the things that people are posting here as anecdotes to why their landlords are shitty are already illegal, it’s just extremely difficult to get anything done about it. I’d suggest also that there was some regulatory body (if one doesn’t exist already) responsible for certifying housing/landlords because then at least shit would get fixed once a year.
My only half-decent experience renting was a blue-collar mom and pop who leveraged their own home to buy a second home to rent, that they rented significantly under market value. If anything, we should be trying to setup more systems that allow this outcome (they fucked me on the deposit though, but that’s the part about renter’s rights.)
Let = rent
I never understood this sentiment. For single family homes the market sets the price. It’s not like when you buy a house and use it for a rental all of sudden it’s cheaper or more expensive in some way. You could make a price/demand argument but then again the underlying demand is housing not money hungry landlords. If there was not an underlying housing demand, no one would rent and it would fail as an investment.
How does the community serve those who want to rent? Apartments? Now that is where we can agree. Apartment valuation is calculated on operations not on the market. The only way to raise value of an apartment is to raise rent (or reduce expenses in some way but at some point you can only do so much). At least with SFH you have appreciation that landlords can factor in for return.
Lastly, 2 of my rentals were foreclosures. If anything I’m performing the city a service by buying these properties and adding value. If you had to choose, would you rather live next to a vacant house or a rental?
To answer your question, it’s fair for a renter to not build equity because they don’t pay for upkeep or have the risk associated with the loan. You have to put skin in the game at some point.
Edit: there are some good points for the other side of the argument if you keep reading. I don’t know what the answer is but I’m not convinced that restrictions or to disincentivize rental operations is the answer.
I beleive housing should be a privately owned venture, at least for suburb housing where the entire plot is included. Outside of that social schemes should purchase/build properties for rental purposes.
Like you said, the housing market is in demand. But how much of that demand is manufactured by landlords purchasing more property to rent versus real buyers looking to buy-to-occupy?
Your argument for cost of maintenance is part of the equation, however the rent costs should be the cost of maintenance and upkeep with a modest margin for investment. However that’s not the case. Landlords want to take their cake and eat it. Rent is now the cost of the mortgage, AND maintenance/upkeep AND profit. Its a win for landlords and a lose for renters. If the renter is capable of paying the inflated rental costs on a regular, then they should be owning their own home. The current status-quo is unfair.
Just FYI, I am a home owner. I know the costs of mortgages, the risks that are involved and the maintenance costs of keeping a home running.
The system is
brokenworking exactly as intended.Just not designed to work for OP.
If by OP you mean literally any renter then sure. The term is landLORD for a reason.
Of course that’s what I mean.
Is this 2/3s of income plus tip or is the tip included? Because if you want to save money, tip your landlord less!
In my area it’s more like 13/12ths
I have seen the amount paid in property taxes in USA via Zillow and… It is HUGE. No surpries that rents are so high. Rent have to cover minimum taxes, maintenance and part of house value. These expenses set the minimum value of a rent. But why you have so high property taxes? Cause enterprieses and billionaires don’t pay taxes and cause they put their huge capitals also in real estate, raising the prices. The problem is that real estate is a right ( house ), but also an asset.
Taxes are astronomical because prices are inflated because of buy-to-rent.
Taxes on single-family residential properties should be like 50% of land value annually for third-homes and up or homes owned by non-human entities. Make it so fucking expensive to own extra houses that they get unloaded cheap to people who will actually live in them, and at the same time reduce the taxable value of the land because it’s selling cheap.
deleted by creator
Property tax is like 2-3% of the property value in my area, the comment you are reply to is just suggesting making it 50% of the value of the plot annually for people who are buying their third property or commercial buyers.
They are saying that it should be for third homes to discourage owning houses in bulk
No, ey said that taxes should be 50% on the third house (and on, probably), not the first one
A 50% tax on land value would be cheaper than my current tax rate on my home xD
Or u know, live in California where the boomer who owns the house is paying 1200 in property tax.
I have seen the amount paid in property taxes in USA via Zillow and… It is HUGE
A snake eating its own tail. Lenders keep cranking out cheap loans, inflating the money supply. Buyers keep bidding up prices, inflating the cost of housing. Municipal governments need the extra cash to fight the endless “crime wave” that mysteriously crests every election cycle, so they’re always ratcheting up their spending for larger and more comically overequipped police departments. And then we’ve got another big economic downturn, so its time to lower interest rates and send out a new wave of cheap loans.
Nobody can afford to have housing prices go down. Just look at what that did to the economy in 2008.
Cause enterprieses and billionaires don’t pay taxes and cause they put their huge capitals also in real estate, raising the prices.
The threat of capital flight (which would leave you with a large number of unpaid and extremely irate police officers) means you can’t risk upsetting the ultra-wealthy.
And besides, their job isn’t to pay taxes, its to create jobs. They employ people in your town and then the employees pay the taxes. The employees get to see their housing prices rise, so they grumble but don’t complain too much. And then you have more money to hire more cops to protect against the latest Crime Wave that just so happens to be paired with a wave of housing foreclosures from lay-offs. So its time to clear the streets, re-list the houses at a higher price, and issue new mortgages with another wave of subprime loans.
If you really want to spice things up, maybe we denominate all our accounts in bitcoin, so we can really start speculating.
Many states have tax cuts for living in the property you own. The high tax rate is the state saying “if you make money, we want to make money”.
The problems is that if you live in an house you rent, you have to pay indirectly full property tax. Cause you aren’t living in a property you own.
My city* only levies land taxes on investment properties
If you live in your own home, there is no tax
*Canberra, Australia
deleted by creator
You are right, taxes are a part of the problem. Home scarcity and the fact that real estate is THE asset are another thing
People called me crazy when I didn’t like the fact that they wanted free public transit and for all the bus costs to be put into people’s property taxes. My only argument was those that actually need free bus fare, will be unable to continue affording their places they rent because property tax will go up. They will end up paying the same, if not more in the long run…all for free transit. People couldn’t grasp it and resorted to verbally attacking me. Lol I still laugh.
Transit ideally should be partly funded in the reduced road cost. Less so for buses, but imaging you linked exurbs and outer suburbs to the city by rail and a simple one lane each way road, instead of a five lane each way highway
I am really not against the idea. The only thing I would say is maybe try it first on areas that are already losing money on mass transit. That way we could massively increase usage. If you are not making money on something stop pretending that you are. NYC system is almost break even so leave that one for last.
I think the best solution is tax brackets for houses, like we do income. 0.1% for anything under 200,000, .4% under 500,000, and so on. Get that transit fund from those that won’t use it anyways but rely on the labor of others to fund their mansions.
What’s to stop Trump accounting under your system?
Easy, your insurance policy can’t exceed the taxed value.
The tax bracket is for the landlord, if the landlord pay 0.4% , you pay 0.4%.
Any owner.
This Was perfect
Yup, same here. System is broken.
Thank God I live somewhere where I can work 32 hours per week as truck driver. I don’t even spend a quarter of my income on rent, have a healthy weed addiction and manage to save about 500 euro a month and that while being single.
Where do you live? Many of us need to know
100% Land Value Tax redistributed as UBI por favor!!!
But what if I have a duplex as my neighbors? Or my other neighbors put in a granny flat for their aging grandparent??!!!
Wont you think of the neighborhood character?
Its wild how the entire country is experiencing a housing shortage
Which entire country? This is lemmy.world
Op is even from Lemmy.zip!
I don’t really understand the market failure happening with such a long term housing shortage. By definition there is excess demand for housing right? So it should make economic sense to build more.
When I ask people always say conspiratorial stuff like “they” maximize profit by keeping housing low but even if there was a conspiracy there should be individuals who are not part of the conspiracy who would profit from going against it.
So it has to be either regulatory or funding based, I think. But I don’t know of any recent regulations that would cause this nationwide, “zoning” is probably part of it but there was no one timeline for that, it’s super local. And funding has been free for a decade and a half and homebuilding has still been slow.
I don’t get it.
Where I live, they simply have made it illegal to build any housing since the 60s. It really sucks
Look to other forms of scalping to see how this works at a smaller scale. Scalping isn’t done through conspiracy, but a bunch of small, self-interested actors reducing supply in the market to inflate prices.
On top of that there are actors that are more coordinated and not as small, like corporations that own hundreds of thousands of homes. These corporations can just coordinate internally (not conspiracy, business) and reduce supply to increase their own returns.
This works for smaller actors too though. As long as the number of houses owned is more than a couple, then it’s likely they’d profit from temporarily restricting supply, and locking in renters to leases for more money. They’ll try to slowly sell off their supply without “flooding” the market and hurting the value of their own supply, just like other scalpers.
Scalping isn’t the comparison though because 1, scalpers don’t reduce the total supply. Any scalper who refuses to sell a portion of their tickets, loses all the money they used to buy them, and the opportunity cost of selling them, and there’s no way it’s worth it for any given individual. The supply/demand differential they make money from is that the venues only have a certain number of seats.
Which brings me to 2, theres no equivalent of homebuilders in the scalper world. If some scalpers could generate new seats at the venue for roughly the cost they pay the venue for tickets, supply and demand would figure themselves out pretty quick.
Hard disagree on the last part there. For one, homebuilders again. Their business model is to build the houses and then sell them, if they joined the “sell houses slower” cartel it just means they earn less profit.
But really the whole idea you’re laying out, the math only works if everyone works together, so it becomes a prisoners dilemma. Because say there’s 20 companies slowing down house sales to maximize profit, there can always be a 21st who gets the benefit of the restricted supply from the 20, but they just sell as much as possible and become the most profitable of all. Maybe it’s in everyone’s interest to restrict supply, but it’s in any given company’s interest to sell as much as possible. So it has to be an as of yet unknown cartel of every home seller in the country and there’s just too many of them to have both: Either it includes everyone or it’s secret.
There are absolutely scalpers that reduce total supply. They’ll only list a couple of consoles that they scalp at a time even if they buy in massive bulk, and it’s all done on the pretense of a limited supply from the original seller that they’re artificially limiting past what the market would naturally do (by buying a ton of them up). Given a literally infinite supply, scalpers lack an ability to do anything. Put another way, when they can’t restrict supply, it’s not a viable strategy.
It’s not that they refuse to sell some of their supply, it’s a temporary restriction (all supply restrictions can be viewed as temporary because we don’t have total knowledge of future supply). The temporary restriction benefits them because they can start bidding wars over the reduced supply, and get a higher price per unit at the cost of getting the money over a longer period of time.
The exact same thing works for housing, when you have the same company renting out tons of units but also keeping tons of units in the same area off the market. It means the bidding wars for the smaller supply of units results in more money per unit (lower supply, same demand, means higher costs).
The concept of a prisoners dilemma here only works if houses are fungible, but they’re not. There are sometimes very similar units or even houses in a neighborhood in the same location, and these are almost fungible, but even in these contexts those nearly identical units in nearly identical locations are usually owned by a single entity (corporate or otherwise), so again there’s no prisoner’s dillema, they can restrict supply effectively to increase yield.
The time vs value calculation is different for housing too compared to smaller things like groceries. If you’re a grocery store, and your local distributor of apples lowers the price of apples, some of that will likely go to the customer because of local competition pushing prices down, and you have a constant supply tied to a constant demand of these (from a buyer’s perspective) essentially fungible things.
Houses are different because if you see the price of houses in your neighborhood drop by some significant amount, individual actors who may otherwise want to sell will actively choose to not list their house because they know the value will go back up, and so these actors are all incentivized to vastly limit supply if something in some area cuts the prices of houses (like a huge influx of new homes for example). These individual actors could be literal individuals or corporations.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Ditto
It’s not so simple, my mom purchased a property with her divorce settlement and the return on the investment can be good, but it can also be not as good. She remodeled an Oregon property in Salem and sold it for less than cost later. While she did get rent for it before she sold, she could have saved a lot of effort just buying dividend stocks.
Real estate can be a good investment, but it can be a poor one.
This isn’t relevant to the meme at all though.
Also if your asking me to feel bad for someone trying to make a profit off acting as a middleman to a basic human need you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Remodeling a house and maintaining it is actual work
Then let the people who actually need to work there do it.
My mom is the landlord and remodeling houses IS her work. She was a stay at home mom until I grew up, that’s what she does for a living after she divorced my dad. She lives on the rent of her properties while she does each project
She lives on the rent of her properties
This is exactly the thing people have issues with. The whole “I am the breadwinner of my landlord’s household.”
That’s why I thought she should just buy stocks and live off dividends instead. I mean, any investment has a rate of return or people would not buy it
Yup, and housing shouldn’t be an investment. It can be affordable, or an investment, not both.
This is really easy… Housing should not be an investment.
Removed by mod
I think landlords is kind of blanket statement. I think most rational people aren’t blaming the landlords who own a single family home and rent the basement suite. I think it’s more referred to companies gobbling up single family homes and rent gouging their tenants.
This is also Lemmy, so, you know, fuck cars, fuck trucks, fuck landlords, fuck Windows, fuck Google, fuck conservatives, fuck you, fuck me, etc etc
This is also Lemmy, so, you know, fuck cars, fuck trucks, fuck landlords, fuck Windows, fuck Google, fuck conservatives, fuck you, fuck me, etc etc
I don’t think I’ve ever seen something I agreed more with. Fuck me.
And fuck you.
Removed by mod
Then don’t rent it an move to a place you can afford to buy the house
So move off of the planet. Got it
deleted by creator
Not so easy for most people to just move.
“Ur homeless? just get a home”
“U depressed? just be more happy”
How is this different from crazy conservatives telling everyone to go to other countries if they don’t like their “American Way”?
LMAO if you pay 66% of your income on rent then you really need to change something in your life.
You’re just out of touch.
Look at almost any major city in North America and then look at the average annual income vs average rent for a one bedroom. Rents have skyrocketed since COVID. Essentially doubled where I’m from. Think wages kept pace?
Removed by mod
You can kindly take your shit opinion elsewhere. Most people who live pay to pay cannot get their life in order because they work 2 jobs.
Get some help.Removed by mod
Exactly! Flipping burgers is meant for KIDS as a first job! But also if I can’t get a speedy meal during my noon lunch break while the kids are at school I’m going to be PISSED!
If everyone who flips burgers gets a “better job” are you going to stop having burgers?
The issue is that while there is work that needs to be done, then there will be a need to pay people to do it. If you’re a business owner and you have work that needs to be done, and you can’t afford to pay your employees enough for them to pay their bills and lube decent lives, and you can’t personally take the hit to your own income to cover the difference, then your business should fail.
Right now, the arrangement forces people to work more than 40 hours a week – which is illegal, but companies get away with it because they don’t work at the same company for the whole time. In fact, many people with multiple jobs don’t even have full time jobs – they have 3 part time jobs, all working them less than 40 hours a week, so they don’t have to give them the benefits they’re required to provide for full time employees.
(Personally, when I was young I had multiple places scheduling me for 39.5 hours a week. Now I’m a white collar FTE and I work 35 hours a week.)
So, next time you call someone who’s flipping burgers “lazy,” think about how lazy a person must be to work 100 hours a week. Is that what laziness looks like to you? How many hours a week do you have to work too not be considered not lazy?
Because, the thing is, you know they aren’t lacy. They’re working their fingers to the bone, and have much shittier and shorter lives than middle class people. Calling them lazy (or stupid or unlucky or whatever) is how you rationalize the fact that you’re unwilling to accept any inconvenience it might cause you to help them.
In this scenario – aka, the real world, the world we are in right now – they are working harder than the rest of us are, for less money.
Removed by mod
Why can’t they just flip burgers from the age of 16 till 65? What if they don’t mind the work, they have a full and fulfilling life outside of work, and their job is just what they do to make ends meet? Does that mean they deserve to live in debt and working 100 hours a week? Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand that, in any economic system, capitalism or otherwise, not everyone can move up?
It’s literally not possible. There have to be people flipping the burgers. That’s a fact of the system; there’s no way around that. And it’s ok – not perfect, but acceptable – as long as we treat those people with dignity and respect.
And that means paying them enough to survive – and thrive – on 40 hours a week. No one’s saying they should have enough money to buy megayachts – or even regular yachts. But they should be able to buy a shitty canoe – and still be able to pay all their bills, and not have to work more than 40 hours.
If you’re concerned about the possibility that, if they earn more, you’ll earn less, that’s just not true. There’s no scenario in the USA where a company is charging customers any less than the most they possibly can, and paying their workers any more than as little as possible. That’s literally the law. There is plenty of extra money that can be used to cover the needs of our poorest people – and to raise the salaries of more scarce labor who would otherwise turn to flipping burgers if burger-flipping salaries went up.
Literally every business that’s even a little successful has extra money. (“Extra money” is also known as profit.) There is no reason why one person should have to work more than 40 hours a week while another person has more money then they can possibly spend in a lifetime; it’s illogical and irrational, and cruel.
wtf are you talking about? Do you think we don’t need plumbers? Nurses? Get a job loser
Removed by mod
What change do you propose? Being born ultra rich?
If you work hard and become a professional you can make 100-120k in your 30s. Maybe as much as 150 if you get lucky. Those jobs exist in places where rent is 50% take home and ownership is completely off the table.
Do you suggest working a Denny’s in a rural area? Fuck that and fuck you.
Removed by mod
How many people are born ultra rich
All the people who are ultra rich
how many people get rich by hard work
0%
Removed by mod
So I need to do your research for you? I thought mister “Provide an answer and educate yourself while researching it” would have, you know, researched it and would have a source for his bold claims.
Removed by mod
