5 ms·

Agreed. I know some family friend land lords who not only do this but prefer cash rent payments so as to avoid(in this case, illegally) taxation. Sucking the a

• burntoutfire 7y ago
  A case for why landlords can be good for community: They landlords paid for the house they rent out. So they either literally built it, adding a new house to a community, or they bought it from someone who built it (or from someone who bought from someone who built it etc.) - the transaction of buying/selling compensates someone for the effort of building the house in the first place. If there were no landlords, the houses would be bought only by people who intend to live in them (let's ignore speculators for a moment), which would make the market less liquid, discouraging people from buying new houses and hence adding to the community. Not to mention the obvious fact that, without landlords, there would be no houses for rent, which would decrease worker mobility and hence make the community worse off economically.
  • AstralStorm 7y ago
    And I'll ask the allegedly stupid question. Why is a less liquid market in illiquid good is bad? (Other than not being as easy to make money in.)
    • nicky0 7y ago
      It’s bad because if you want to buy or sell something, for “genuine” reason, an illiquid market may mean you are unable to do so.
  • KozmoNau7 7y ago
    >" If there were no landlords, the houses would be bought only by people who intend to live in them" That would be a good thing. Housing would be cheaper, because people wouldn't be priced out of the market by rent seekers with large capital. Housing should not be an investment object, it should be for living in. Most western countries have a large surplus of housing, but a lot of people can't afford to live there. The landlords and speculators would rather have houses stand empty than reduce their profits. All the while, there are homeless people on the streets. Letting perfectly good housing stand empty solely for the sake of profits is morally reprehensible.
    • jakecopp 7y ago
      Then why not just add a tax for vacant houses and get the best of both? Landlords with access to capital increasing supply, and less speculation on empty houses. (In Australia) removing negative gearing, mandatory parking minimums and foreign investment would go a long way too! Though I hear Prop 13 and strange taxation in San Fran is one of the issues.
      • KozmoNau7 7y ago
        Adding a vacant house tax would be one way of discouraging that rent-seeking behavior. Or in more general terms, a land value tax would be nearly ideal. The root problem is that landlordism is exploitative. We don't need landlords to increase the supply of housing, that can be done much better through housing cooperatives and publicly funded housing, where the element of greed is minimized. Landlords are rent seekers, extracting excessive profits from a basic human need. And there really isn't a need for increasing the housing supply in any western country that I know of. The issue is not one of supply, the issue is that a lot of the people who work in the cities are priced out of being able to live in those cities. That is not a problem you can solve by simply increasing supply, because landlords obviously want the best return on their investments, so they build expensive housing, which attracts only those with enough wealth to buy in at that price level. As a result, when left to their own devices, landlords will not build housing that is inexpensive to live in (small apartments without parking and so on), unless they are forced to do so though regulations.