4 ms·
The landlord does no work for the income though, unlike your analogy.
by lucian1900 5y ago
The landlord does no work for the income though, unlike your analogy.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- _-david-_ 5y agoOther than fixing plumbing, doing gardening, fixing the roof, etc.
- lucian1900 5y agoThat doesn’t even happen every month. Just how much should a landlord be paid per hour? As a tenant I’d be happy to pay market rates for maintenance instead of rent.
- _-david-_ 5y agoIf you were paying for a mortgage, gardening, repairs, property taxes and whatever other costs there are you would just be paying for the house. Many people cannot afford all of those expenses or do not want to deal with all of that which is why they rent in the first place.
- lucian1900 5y agoA mortgage is different, because it is based on the price of homes inflated by speculation. Decades ago before speculation was so common, both homes and mortgages were very cheap relative to wages. I’d happily pay everything besides the mortgage, it’d be far cheaper than my rent. Most months it’d even be zero. I could absolutely afford all maintenance costs, while I can’t afford the speculation-inflated price of the home I live in.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- _-david-_ 5y agoIf you are not going to pay for the mortgage or rent then who owns the house? Nobody? Everybody?
- lucian1900 5y agoI’m just pointing out that the vast majority of what I pay my landlord is due to widespread asset speculation, as opposed to any labour he has done or paid for. Collective ownership would be even better, sure. Before 89 my parents paid to the state ~5% of one wage for a good sized flat. That covered amortised construction costs and maintenance. Housing doesn’t have to be expensive.