6 ms·

Rent and debt are far too often taxation without representation. It's that simple. This is especially true in situations where landlords sit back and collect,

Rent and debt are far too often taxation without representation. It's that simple. This is especially true in situations where landlords sit back and collect, without taking due responsibility for the shape of the living spaces they supposedly "own". And people put themselves into these feudal arrangements for so many reasons. That part is not simple. Why do people want to be landlords over others? Why do you want to live in a world where it is normal to take huge debts, only to hand off the monthly payments to people who are barely treading water? This whole business of playing musical chairs with our homes and communities is beyond ridiculous. The amount of furniture that gets thrown out every month is shameful in the face of global climate change.

imjustsaying 9y ago
>Why do people want to be landlords over others? Why do you want to live in a world where it is normal to take huge debts, only to hand off the monthly payments to people who are barely treading water? I'm not saying it's the bank cartel, but it's the bank cartel.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Being a landlord is no different than collecting a check from your SaaS product. Are we throwing all property rights out the window at the same time?
- macawfish 9y ago
  In some sense, we are throwing all the property rights into the windows of banks and real estate investment offices, where they will conveniently land in some virtual filing drawer to sit with the rest of their spoils.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Banks, real estate, and Silicon Valley.
- SilasX 9y ago
  Except for how the licensor created the software but the landlord didn't create the land.
  - afuchs 9y ago
    There is an expectation that a landlord will maintain and support the properties they rent out.
    - SilasX 9y ago
      They're charging for the locational value (that, as above, they didn't create), not just for maintenance.
m-j-fox 9y ago
> Why do people want to be landlords over others? Incentives. I'm a small time landlord. I was able to rent out my old house at a rate that covers the mortgage and a manager. When you factor appreciation, equity and tax breaks my net worth increases at a rate of $3k/month even though on paper I barely break even. I'd be dumb to turn down such a deal. The richest man in California owns the Irvine Company. I assume he faces similar incentives at scale.
- macawfish 9y ago
  On one level, I get that: it is economically sensible to play the landlord role, even at a small scale. And in a lot of ways, you're doing something really important. You're providing someone with a place to live, one that they don't have to worry about taking long-term care of. You've decided that you're going to be a long term care-taker of this home. Assuming you're a good landlord, you really are doing some good for the world. But would you really be "dumb" if you did things differently? Or would you be following a different set of economic values? Seriously, think about that. I challenge you to rethink your "smart vs dumb" idea. It's "smart" to drive and rely on a car. But on another very important level, it's also incredibly foolish, a.k.a. "dumb". And I'd argue that what you and your renter have done is also pretty "dumb". Why? Because you and your renters are paying the bank that much for a house. The cost of building a new house is much less. This is an old house, but the bank said "this house is actually worth more than a new house, because you can simply pass the debt onto someone who doesn't have the option of buying a house at this moment, even though they urgently need a place to live". The house itself probably isn't inherently "worth" that much: it takes a lot of work to keep up an aging house. Yet all of this rent money is harvested from the occupant's time/earnings/savings: money that could be invested in the house gets sucked into some exponential function that translates to the bank taking thousands of dollars a month from your renters. Since the bank is so "helpful", you get to keep a very small amount allowance so that you can do repairs/profit. Of course, in the end you'll "own" the house, you'll have paid off your mortgage. Or maybe you'll sell it to someone else, who will enter into a similar agreement with the bank. Regardless, by the time someone has paid off the mortgage, banks will have gotten off with something in the range of 0.5-5x the entire inflated value of the house just for handling sacred paperwork. To me, that's DUMB. This kind of thing is technically forbidden in Islam, Judaism and arguably Christianity, but not in the USA. By the way, I'm right there with you in doing dumb stuff like this: I'm a renter.
placeybordeaux 9y ago
> Why do people want to be landlords over others? Why do you want to live in a world where it is normal to take huge debts, only to hand off the monthly payments to people who are barely treading water? Seems like you answered your own question. Being a landlord exposes you to risk and in most cases yields profit.
nerfhammer 9y ago
In SF people being a landlord is so onerous that people often don't want to be landlords to the point that they'd rather leave highly lucrative space unoccupied forever. And/or rent it out semi-illegally on airbnb.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
I agree with you - the whole idea of people owning houses they didn't build AND don't live in and somehow getting to make a profit off it is absurd. It's just a way of creating a class system and funnelling money from working people to the lazy. Why should someone get to sit back and collect a profit just because they were born into a rich family and had the privilege to bootstrap free income for life thru property ownership? It has to stop eventually. I say this as a young Melbournian who will probably never own a house unless the bubble bursts in a very, very big way. Median house price is nearing a million dollars (currently $843,674 [1] i.e. twenty years pay without including any mortgage interest), and those responsible tell us it's our fault because we eat too much avocado. What work are landlords doing exactly? What value are they creating for the world? What is better about it for them being there? Nothing, nothing, and nothing. I could say the same about banks and mortgage lenders. Creating absolutely nothing for the world, simply holding housing hostage and collecting a big paycheque for it. The entire way we think about home ownership has to change. [1] https://www.domain.com.au/news/melbournes-median-house-price-soars-to-843674-in-march-quarter-domain-group-20170419-gvn64k/ https://www.domain.com.au/news/melbournes-median-house-price...
- bigzen 9y ago
  I agree with you, but what is the solution? I can't think of any reasonable solution to the stated problem.
  - macawfish 9y ago
    I think one great solution is housing coops. There is actually an organization that helps people start and maintain housing coops: http://coophousing.org/ http://coophousing.org/ Housing coops have a lot of potential.
    - itchyouch 9y ago
      Maybe, but the general acceptance process of needing to get approval by the existing neighbors seems to both be the pro & con that prevents more widespread availability of coops

imjustsaying 9y ago

>Why do people want to be landlords over others? Why do you want to live in a world where it is normal to take huge debts, only to hand off the monthly payments to people who are barely treading water? I'm not saying it's the bank cartel, but it's the bank cartel.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Being a landlord is no different than collecting a check from your SaaS product. Are we throwing all property rights out the window at the same time?

macawfish 9y ago
In some sense, we are throwing all the property rights into the windows of banks and real estate investment offices, where they will conveniently land in some virtual filing drawer to sit with the rest of their spoils.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Banks, real estate, and Silicon Valley.
SilasX 9y ago
Except for how the licensor created the software but the landlord didn't create the land.
- afuchs 9y ago
  There is an expectation that a landlord will maintain and support the properties they rent out.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    They're charging for the locational value (that, as above, they didn't create), not just for maintenance.

m-j-fox 9y ago

> Why do people want to be landlords over others? Incentives. I'm a small time landlord. I was able to rent out my old house at a rate that covers the mortgage and a manager. When you factor appreciation, equity and tax breaks my net worth increases at a rate of $3k/month even though on paper I barely break even. I'd be dumb to turn down such a deal. The richest man in California owns the Irvine Company. I assume he faces similar incentives at scale.

macawfish 9y ago
On one level, I get that: it is economically sensible to play the landlord role, even at a small scale. And in a lot of ways, you're doing something really important. You're providing someone with a place to live, one that they don't have to worry about taking long-term care of. You've decided that you're going to be a long term care-taker of this home. Assuming you're a good landlord, you really are doing some good for the world. But would you really be "dumb" if you did things differently? Or would you be following a different set of economic values? Seriously, think about that. I challenge you to rethink your "smart vs dumb" idea. It's "smart" to drive and rely on a car. But on another very important level, it's also incredibly foolish, a.k.a. "dumb". And I'd argue that what you and your renter have done is also pretty "dumb". Why? Because you and your renters are paying the bank that much for a house. The cost of building a new house is much less. This is an old house, but the bank said "this house is actually worth more than a new house, because you can simply pass the debt onto someone who doesn't have the option of buying a house at this moment, even though they urgently need a place to live". The house itself probably isn't inherently "worth" that much: it takes a lot of work to keep up an aging house. Yet all of this rent money is harvested from the occupant's time/earnings/savings: money that could be invested in the house gets sucked into some exponential function that translates to the bank taking thousands of dollars a month from your renters. Since the bank is so "helpful", you get to keep a very small amount allowance so that you can do repairs/profit. Of course, in the end you'll "own" the house, you'll have paid off your mortgage. Or maybe you'll sell it to someone else, who will enter into a similar agreement with the bank. Regardless, by the time someone has paid off the mortgage, banks will have gotten off with something in the range of 0.5-5x the entire inflated value of the house just for handling sacred paperwork. To me, that's DUMB. This kind of thing is technically forbidden in Islam, Judaism and arguably Christianity, but not in the USA. By the way, I'm right there with you in doing dumb stuff like this: I'm a renter.

placeybordeaux 9y ago

> Why do people want to be landlords over others? Why do you want to live in a world where it is normal to take huge debts, only to hand off the monthly payments to people who are barely treading water? Seems like you answered your own question. Being a landlord exposes you to risk and in most cases yields profit.

nerfhammer 9y ago

In SF people being a landlord is so onerous that people often don't want to be landlords to the point that they'd rather leave highly lucrative space unoccupied forever. And/or rent it out semi-illegally on airbnb.

ClassyJacket 9y ago

I agree with you - the whole idea of people owning houses they didn't build AND don't live in and somehow getting to make a profit off it is absurd. It's just a way of creating a class system and funnelling money from working people to the lazy. Why should someone get to sit back and collect a profit just because they were born into a rich family and had the privilege to bootstrap free income for life thru property ownership? It has to stop eventually. I say this as a young Melbournian who will probably never own a house unless the bubble bursts in a very, very big way. Median house price is nearing a million dollars (currently $843,674 [1] i.e. twenty years pay without including any mortgage interest), and those responsible tell us it's our fault because we eat too much avocado. What work are landlords doing exactly? What value are they creating for the world? What is better about it for them being there? Nothing, nothing, and nothing. I could say the same about banks and mortgage lenders. Creating absolutely nothing for the world, simply holding housing hostage and collecting a big paycheque for it. The entire way we think about home ownership has to change. [1] https://www.domain.com.au/news/melbournes-median-house-price-soars-to-843674-in-march-quarter-domain-group-20170419-gvn64k/ https://www.domain.com.au/news/melbournes-median-house-price...

bigzen 9y ago
I agree with you, but what is the solution? I can't think of any reasonable solution to the stated problem.
- macawfish 9y ago
  I think one great solution is housing coops. There is actually an organization that helps people start and maintain housing coops: http://coophousing.org/ http://coophousing.org/ Housing coops have a lot of potential.
  - itchyouch 9y ago
    Maybe, but the general acceptance process of needing to get approval by the existing neighbors seems to both be the pro & con that prevents more widespread availability of coops