5 ms·

> providing no service Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. I think a land tax would be great to curb speculation. Buying property, not

by trgn 5y ago

> providing no service Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. I think a land tax would be great to curb speculation. Buying property, not providing any service (neither by renting nor capital investment in improvements), and just pocketing the appreciation, I agree, that's parasitic on the community. FWIW - I don't think a landtax would create a meaningful tilt towards more affordable home ownership, especially single family home ownership, since it's such a poor use of land. Instead, I think it will tilt to more affordable housing in the aggregate. Lower rents, but a lot higher capital improvements in what's now underdeveloped land. More apartment buildings basically. More units, more affordable, closer to amenities, but smaller overall. > buy-to-rent a property and immediately turn up a profit That's just never the case (at least, the immediate part of it), maybe only in the most lopsided markets. Buying a property is a huge capital investment, and can take decades to start seeing meaningful ROI. It does create cash flow quickly.

andrepd 5y ago
Oh but it is the case, for instance buy-to-let loans are a big thing in the UK from a few years back till now.
- trgn 5y ago
  Thanks, I'll look into it!
danaris 5y ago
> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident and extract, at best, a middleman's fee. Some landlords also provide access to services such as repair, cleaning, etc and combine those fees with the rent, but there is no reason those could not be equally available to owner-residents without the landlord acting as a middleman, and there is nothing inherent in the nature of being a landlord that implies offering such services.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property? When I lived in Baltimore you can be damn sure I didn't want to own anything in that city. There are valid reasons for renting to exist, landlords do provide valuable services, and there are people who do want landlords and renting to exist. It's okay to say you personally don't like landlords without making it seem like they're some kind of demons
  - andrepd 5y ago
    > It's okay to say you personally don't like landlords See, it's actually precisely the opposite: I don't hate people personally for owning and renting homes, I dislike the system for being broken and allowing such parasitical inefficiencies. "Hate the game not the player" etcetera
  - danaris 5y ago
    > Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property? Actually, I don't. I know that there are people who would prefer not to. But because of the way the system is set up, it is so trivial and common for landlords to be extremely abusive. I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead—but actually have that option, because what would have been set up as rental properties are instead genuinely low-cost housing for purchase—than see the system continue as it is now. I also know it's very unlikely that the status quo is going anywhere, so this is almost entirely a theoretical discussion.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      > I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead This would make things even worse. Imagine having to go through the whole house buying process every time you want to move. What are young people or poor supposed to do, live with their parents until they can hopefully afford a house? What if someone just can't afford a house?
- 5y ago
drewcoo 5y ago
> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. And tapeworms are attractively slimming!
- trgn 5y ago
  lol! Point taken.
- nwah1 5y ago
  The colloquial use of the term 'landlord' equivocates between the role of property manager and the role of titleholder. The latter is the only one that really deserves the feudal term. Property managers do indeed earn their living. They are often just contracted by titleholders. Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do. If the same person serves both roles then they are wearing two hats. Just as if someone were a stockholder and an employee of the same company.
  - chii 5y ago
    if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital. > Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do. their role is to provide capital to purchase the title. And in the future, some other capital holder will buy the title off you. This whole process is what enables investment in the land in the first place. It's the same idea as shareholders buying shares off other shareholders. These "secondary" buyers don't directly contribute to the company (analogous to the land), but their role is necessary to distribute the risk of investment across time. High risk takers buy the IPO, and lower risk takers buy after the company has proven to be successful. This isn't any different from land holding. High risk buyers would buy new land (offered by the crown/gov't), and perhaps develop it (or not, if they want to take on a loss since undeveloped land is money-losing). But once the land is proven valuable - e.g., the city is expanding into this new land now - the value grows, and they can sell to a different title holder who want more certainty of the value of the land.
    - tome 5y ago

by trgn 5y ago

andrepd 5y ago

Oh but it is the case, for instance buy-to-let loans are a big thing in the UK from a few years back till now.

trgn 5y ago
Thanks, I'll look into it!

danaris 5y ago

> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident and extract, at best, a middleman's fee. Some landlords also provide access to services such as repair, cleaning, etc and combine those fees with the rent, but there is no reason those could not be equally available to owner-residents without the landlord acting as a middleman, and there is nothing inherent in the nature of being a landlord that implies offering such services.

silicon2401 5y ago
> Landlords take property that could be owned outright by the resident Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property? When I lived in Baltimore you can be damn sure I didn't want to own anything in that city. There are valid reasons for renting to exist, landlords do provide valuable services, and there are people who do want landlords and renting to exist. It's okay to say you personally don't like landlords without making it seem like they're some kind of demons
- andrepd 5y ago
  > It's okay to say you personally don't like landlords See, it's actually precisely the opposite: I don't hate people personally for owning and renting homes, I dislike the system for being broken and allowing such parasitical inefficiencies. "Hate the game not the player" etcetera
- danaris 5y ago
  > Why do you assume every resident wants to own their property? Actually, I don't. I know that there are people who would prefer not to. But because of the way the system is set up, it is so trivial and common for landlords to be extremely abusive. I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead—but actually have that option, because what would have been set up as rental properties are instead genuinely low-cost housing for purchase—than see the system continue as it is now. I also know it's very unlikely that the status quo is going anywhere, so this is almost entirely a theoretical discussion.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    > I would rather see things changed so that some people who would prefer to rent have to shrug and buy something instead This would make things even worse. Imagine having to go through the whole house buying process every time you want to move. What are young people or poor supposed to do, live with their parents until they can hopefully afford a house? What if someone just can't afford a house?
5y ago

drewcoo 5y ago

> Landlords are not parasites and provide a valuable service. And tapeworms are attractively slimming!

trgn 5y ago
lol! Point taken.
nwah1 5y ago
The colloquial use of the term 'landlord' equivocates between the role of property manager and the role of titleholder. The latter is the only one that really deserves the feudal term. Property managers do indeed earn their living. They are often just contracted by titleholders. Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do. If the same person serves both roles then they are wearing two hats. Just as if someone were a stockholder and an employee of the same company.
- chii 5y ago
  if you're against title-holding, you are really against the idea of ownership, and capital. > Because the titleholder is not obligated to do anything at all. Their role is to own, not to do. their role is to provide capital to purchase the title. And in the future, some other capital holder will buy the title off you. This whole process is what enables investment in the land in the first place. It's the same idea as shareholders buying shares off other shareholders. These "secondary" buyers don't directly contribute to the company (analogous to the land), but their role is necessary to distribute the risk of investment across time. High risk takers buy the IPO, and lower risk takers buy after the company has proven to be successful. This isn't any different from land holding. High risk buyers would buy new land (offered by the crown/gov't), and perhaps develop it (or not, if they want to take on a loss since undeveloped land is money-losing). But once the land is proven valuable - e.g., the city is expanding into this new land now - the value grows, and they can sell to a different title holder who want more certainty of the value of the land.
  - tome 5y ago