5 ms·
> The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear. This conveniently omits the fact that there used to be tw
by mmarx 12y ago
> The landlord was likely losing money keeping it rented at $2145 even if he owned it free and clear.
This conveniently omits the fact that there used to be two units in that house, so the actual rent would certainly have been closer to double that amount.
- TheHypnotist 12y agoJudging by the series of downvoted comments in this thread, are you surprised? Apparently circumventing rent control is OK amongst the HN crowd.
- necrodawg 12y agoCause libertarians.
- TheHypnotist 12y agoUntil their rent quadruples. I'd like to be there an here them say "Welp, free market dictates my rent going up 400% and that's okay!"
- jsprogrammer 12y agoIt also conveniently omitted any calculation about how the owner is 'losing money', despite there being a ~$14,000 positive difference between what the tenant is paying per year and the taxes due.
- blake_himself 12y agoLosing, compared to what he could have been making.
- WalterSear 12y agoNelson: Hey, look how much Skinner makes. 25,000 dollars a year! Bart: Lets see, he's 40 years old, times 25 grand.. woah! He's a millionaire!
- jsprogrammer 12y agoDo you imply that someone should be able to be a millionaire, or even 'rich', solely by collecting rent on real property? Real property that is apparently not even properly maintained? Talk about market inefficiencies.
- pgwhalen 12y agoIt's a bit foolish to assume that a landlord's sole expense is property tax.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]