4 ms·

> They serve no purpose that their tenants could not do themselves Landlords serve an important role in the economy: they pay housing developers to build housi

> They serve no purpose that their tenants could not do themselves Landlords serve an important role in the economy: they pay housing developers to build housing. Most renters don't have the ability to cover the cost of building housing or the credit-worthiness to borrow it. By providing the liquidity necessary to pay housing developers to build, landlords increase the total number of housing units created. When we are facing housing shortages, this is an extremely important role. And I would love to see us transition to land value taxes, they are the form of taxes that minimize deadweight loss. If we did, landlords would pay high taxes and would still exist because they play an important role in the housing ecosystem.

yellowapple 4y ago
> they pay housing developers to build housing And that upfront investment is finite. At some point the developer/landlord will have broken even, and will cease serving any real purpose other than being a parasitic rentseeking middleman between a property and its residents. "But muh maintenance!" - tenants can pool money for maintenance just fine - obviously, because they're already paying more than that as rent. And this assumes that the landlord did indeed pay for development. There are plenty of simplexes/duplexes/quadruplexes/condos out there as rental properties, and in those cases that premise is patently false. > Most renters don't have the ability to cover the cost of building housing or the credit-worthiness to borrow it. Obviously not; if they did, then landlords wouldn't be able to prey upon them and force them to pay far more than they would if they actually owned the housing outright. The solution there is to encourage them to pool resources as a housing cooperative or some similar resident-owned entity, not to pretend that landlords' inflated senses of self-worth are in any way legitimate. > When we are facing housing shortages, this is an extremely important role. What's needed are more housing cooperatives, not more landlords. > landlords would pay high taxes and would still exist because they play an important role in the housing ecosystem. Landlords would cease to exist because it would no longer be profitable. They would be replaced rather thoroughly with housing cooperatives, and the world would be much better for it.

yellowapple 4y ago

> they pay housing developers to build housing And that upfront investment is finite. At some point the developer/landlord will have broken even, and will cease serving any real purpose other than being a parasitic rentseeking middleman between a property and its residents. "But muh maintenance!" - tenants can pool money for maintenance just fine - obviously, because they're already paying more than that as rent. And this assumes that the landlord did indeed pay for development. There are plenty of simplexes/duplexes/quadruplexes/condos out there as rental properties, and in those cases that premise is patently false. > Most renters don't have the ability to cover the cost of building housing or the credit-worthiness to borrow it. Obviously not; if they did, then landlords wouldn't be able to prey upon them and force them to pay far more than they would if they actually owned the housing outright. The solution there is to encourage them to pool resources as a housing cooperative or some similar resident-owned entity, not to pretend that landlords' inflated senses of self-worth are in any way legitimate. > When we are facing housing shortages, this is an extremely important role. What's needed are more housing cooperatives, not more landlords. > landlords would pay high taxes and would still exist because they play an important role in the housing ecosystem. Landlords would cease to exist because it would no longer be profitable. They would be replaced rather thoroughly with housing cooperatives, and the world would be much better for it.