5 ms·

[EDIT: formatting & #7] Comparing rent on farm land is not the same as rent on housing. I own a rental house. What does the rent go to? Well, I pay a mortga

[EDIT: formatting & #7] Comparing rent on farm land is not the same as rent on housing. I own a rental house. What does the rent go to? Well, I pay a mortgage, taxes, utilities, and upkeep. That is, I'm saving up now for a roof and a retaining wall (to give better access on one side of the driveway). What value do the renters receive? 1. No risk. They can walk away, but I still have a 30-year mortgage. The plumbing can fail. The roof can leak. The electric can degrade. The building can crumble. I, the owner, have to fix it IF it happens. The renter does not assume any of that risk. 2. No commitment. Aside from a short lease (which they agree to the terms), the renter has no long-term obligation to that property. I, as the owner, have committed to maintaining the property for decades. 3. Access to the property and all of its features. If you don't think that that is value, then try being homeless. 4. Furthermore, I, as the owner, DO NOT have access to the use of the property. Perhaps for decades. 5. Monopoly? I cannot think of a single example of a monopoly in land ownership other than the government itself and the threat of eminent domain. If you don't like my terms for lease, then go next door. Different owner, different terms. Or buy your own. 6. Initial Investment. I, as an owner, had to save for years to consolidate the capital for the down payment of that property. That means that, for years, I did not party, buy the latest technology, eat at moderately-priced restaurants, go on vacation, buy a shiny new vehicle, purchase concert tickets, etc. I deprived myself of entertainment and luxery to, instead, work multiple jobs, with the intent of having a rental property. 7. Improvement. I improve the property. If I do not pay someone to do it, then it is me doing it myself. I refinished the hardwood floors. I fixed drywall and painted. I removed old ductwork. I provide appliances. I provide furnishing (I rent to students, after all). I put the labor into the property, further depriving myself of other more enjoyable activity. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your restrictive definition of what of "rent" represents. Rent is compensation for my years of preparation and self-denial of the reward for my own personal labor. Rent is the fee that the renter pays for not having done the same. Rent is never pure profit. Rent is a continual financial planning for the upkeep and sustaining of the investment. Do I benefit from my investment? Yes. Do I feel guilty about it? No. Should I feel guilty about it? Never. If you are mad at a landlord for having to pay rent, then dig yourself out of that situation. What if it takes years? Welcome to the club. Do it anyway. So what if you have to move? Again, welcome to the club. Do it anyway. So what if the landlord is wealthy? Wealth has to come from somewhere, and if your current financial strategy isn't making you wealthy, then change it. It will probably take a lifetime to do, but then again, that's probably what your landlord did (or is in the process of doing).

klodolph 6y ago
You’re evaluating the benefits and drawbacks renting and owning, taking our economy and laws for granted. This is different from what I was doing, which was comparing the economic value produced by landlords to the money they are paid for it. 1. Assuming risk is valid. However, it only accounts for a small portion of rent. 2. You do not actually have that kind of commitment. You can sell the property. The only risk here is that you cannot make a profit when you sell it, so this is nothing more than a repeat of point #1. 3/4. Access to use of the property would exist whether or not it had a landlord. The landlord is not providing value here, merely using the power of a government-granted monopoly on the land. 5. Land is not fungible and there is a limited supply. You are granted a monopoly on the land that you own. 6. The reason the initial investment is so high is because local laws are generally put in place to protect the interests of homeowners, over the interests of renters. 7. The improvement only accounts for a small portion of rent. > I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your restrictive definition of what of "rent" represents. Rent is compensation for my years of preparation and self-denial of the reward for my own personal labor. You obviously don’t feel sorry, but you are benefiting from a system which is rigged in your favor, and building capital on the backs of people who actually provide value to the economy. That’s not to say that you are not providing value to the economy—it’s just that the value you provide is much smaller than the amount you are paid for it. Consider, for a moment, the reason why rent may go up in a particular area. The main reason it goes up is because of the economy in a particular area. The economy makes the rent go up because the people living there are more productive—not because the landlords are more productive! So the landlords are being compensated for other people’s work, when the rent goes up. > If you are mad at a landlord for having to pay rent, then dig yourself out of that situation. I wouldn’t get mad at leeches, mosquitos, or other parasites. They are merely making the best out of the ecological niche that they arrived in. But I’m also not going to feel sympathy for parasites, nor am I going to care whether they feel guilty.
- coreyp_1 6y ago
  LOL... keep being poor and mad...
  - 6y ago

klodolph 6y ago

You’re evaluating the benefits and drawbacks renting and owning, taking our economy and laws for granted. This is different from what I was doing, which was comparing the economic value produced by landlords to the money they are paid for it. 1. Assuming risk is valid. However, it only accounts for a small portion of rent. 2. You do not actually have that kind of commitment. You can sell the property. The only risk here is that you cannot make a profit when you sell it, so this is nothing more than a repeat of point #1. 3/4. Access to use of the property would exist whether or not it had a landlord. The landlord is not providing value here, merely using the power of a government-granted monopoly on the land. 5. Land is not fungible and there is a limited supply. You are granted a monopoly on the land that you own. 6. The reason the initial investment is so high is because local laws are generally put in place to protect the interests of homeowners, over the interests of renters. 7. The improvement only accounts for a small portion of rent. > I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your restrictive definition of what of "rent" represents. Rent is compensation for my years of preparation and self-denial of the reward for my own personal labor. You obviously don’t feel sorry, but you are benefiting from a system which is rigged in your favor, and building capital on the backs of people who actually provide value to the economy. That’s not to say that you are not providing value to the economy—it’s just that the value you provide is much smaller than the amount you are paid for it. Consider, for a moment, the reason why rent may go up in a particular area. The main reason it goes up is because of the economy in a particular area. The economy makes the rent go up because the people living there are more productive—not because the landlords are more productive! So the landlords are being compensated for other people’s work, when the rent goes up. > If you are mad at a landlord for having to pay rent, then dig yourself out of that situation. I wouldn’t get mad at leeches, mosquitos, or other parasites. They are merely making the best out of the ecological niche that they arrived in. But I’m also not going to feel sympathy for parasites, nor am I going to care whether they feel guilty.

coreyp_1 6y ago
LOL... keep being poor and mad...
- 6y ago