|
Horseshoe theory posted:Anyone quote Mao's thoughts on landlords to her? Tubgoat has issued a correction as of 02:23 on Jul 11, 2021 |
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
I’m a landlord now and I still want to kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
How! posted:I’m a landlord now and I still want to kill us all. Ban this sick gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 07:04
|
|
|
How! posted:I’m a landlord now and I still want to kill us all. why would you admit to this
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 11:50
|
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:why would you admit to this A public shaming in lieu of not doing the shameful thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 12:09
|
|
|
How! posted:I’m a landlord now and I still want to kill us all. not enough, apparently
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
The great thing about landlords is that it's the sort of thing where there really is zero excuse under any circumstances. There's no real situation where someone couldn't just sell the property in question, so even the "small time" landlords who might actually be dependent on rent payments could always just sell their extra house and just be in the position of "a normal person, except with a house's worth of cash."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
How! posted:I’m a landlord now and I still want to kill us all. my hands have felt an innocent's lifeblood trickle to a stop due to mine own heinous actions as I exulted in the gore and the snuffing out of human life and i think killing is bad, actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The great thing about landlords is that it's the sort of thing where there really is zero excuse under any circumstances. There's no real situation where someone couldn't just sell the property in question, so even the "small time" landlords who might actually be dependent on rent payments could always just sell their extra house and just be in the position of "a normal person, except with a house's worth of cash." Now would be the time to do it to. My dad has been renting out his mothers house since she died in 2015 and offered to sell it to the couple living there multiple times and they refused. Now he’s finally said gently caress it and put it up for sale while the market is still bonkers high. Who knows if and when it’s gonna crash back down to reality tho
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
I just find the idea of holding someone's dwelling over their head for profit to be so loving odious I can't stomach the idea of doing it. I feel like even if you were a good person going into it, you'd be poisoned by the reality of threatening or making others homeless for your own bread in a matter of months.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The great thing about landlords is that it's the sort of thing where there really is zero excuse under any circumstances. There's no real situation where someone couldn't just sell the property in question, so even the "small time" landlords who might actually be dependent on rent payments could always just sell their extra house and just be in the position of "a normal person, except with a house's worth of cash."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
The only circumstance in which I can see "Landlord" not being parasitic is in the situation where someone say, owns, manages, and does the superintendent-type work for a multi-unit dwelling themselves. And even there it would require a market that's not totally hosed and exploitative at the baseline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
still a parasite
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:The only circumstance in which I can see "Landlord" not being parasitic is in the situation where someone say, owns, manages, and does the superintendent-type work for a multi-unit dwelling themselves. And even there it would require a market that's not totally hosed and exploitative at the baseline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
owning even 1 home is enough to make someone a class enemy, worthy of ridicule and bile from posters everywhere
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:The only circumstance in which I can see "Landlord" not being parasitic is in the situation where someone say, owns, manages, and does the superintendent-type work for a multi-unit dwelling themselves. And even there it would require a market that's not totally hosed and exploitative at the baseline. That would require ones "rent" to only cover maintenance fees and not existence fees
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:why would you admit to this Because I’m a dumbass! It’s just an in-law unit on the side of my house that we rent out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:The only circumstance in which I can see "Landlord" not being parasitic is in the situation where someone say, owns, manages, and does the superintendent-type work for a multi-unit dwelling themselves. And even there it would require a market that's not totally hosed and exploitative at the baseline. the only landlord that isnt parasitic is the one who has to rent out part of their home because they can't survive on their social security alone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
F Stop Fitzgerald posted:the only landlord that isnt parasitic is the one who has to rent out part of their home because they can't survive on their social security alone. But they're on Social Security, and that, BY DEFINITION, means they are parasites. Now that that's settled, let's talk about age of consent laws and how they violate my freedom of expression and the rights given to me as an independent citizen
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:That would require ones "rent" to only cover maintenance fees and not existence fees
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 05:40
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:That would require ones "rent" to only cover maintenance fees and not existence fees
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 06:42
|
|
|
How! posted:I’m a landlord now and I still want to kill us all. I've had three separate, easy and profitable opportunities to become a landlord. I am not, nor have I ever been, a landlord. The gently caress you doing? Orange Devil has issued a correction as of 07:55 on Jul 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
How! posted:Because I’m a dumbass! lower their rent
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 07:57
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:lower their rent to zero (plus utilities and maintenance)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
I rented rooms to friends in my house for a third of 'market price(~200$)' which didn't even cover maintenance and necessary repairs since the place was let to go for 15 years before we moved in. I mostly used that as my weed and beer money since I knew it wasn't permanent and didn't want to build my budget around it. I shared the weed n beer with them and I still felt like a piece of poo poo parasite and would apologize to them when id get drunk and they'd tell me to shut up it was fine they were happy. I do not know how actual landlords sleep at night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
one of my friends is studying abroad for a semester and was debating whether to put his stuff in storage. my friend's roommate had originally been a random assignment but they'd been living together for a year now and got along well enough. his roommate's parents decided that they'd cover the cost of the whole apartment when my friend left so his roommate could have the whole place to himself. as my friend was deciding where to put his stuff, his roommate graciously offered to let him stash it in some corner of the apartment while he was gone! how kind. now let's weigh my friend's options: Rent had been $600/mo for each of them all year Leaving it in storage would be about $100/mo my friend's roommate offered to let him store his belongings in the now 1-person apartment (totally covered by his parents) for $400/mo
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
How! posted:I’m a landlord now and I still want to kill us all. Matthew 19:21, comrade. Ytlaya posted:The great thing about landlords is that it's the sort of thing where there really is zero excuse under any circumstances. There's no real situation where someone couldn't just sell the property in question, so even the "small time" landlords who might actually be dependent on rent payments could always just sell their extra house and just be in the position of "a normal person, except with a house's worth of cash." The only scenario besides someone renting out a spare bedroom in the house that they live in that I could see would be some kind of co-op situation where the units are rented at just enough to cover the expenses of maintaining the building but that's still the "charity" solution so it's a band-aid at best
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
if you're covering the cost of maintaining/improving the building and you're not getting any equity in it that's still theft (imo)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
That's a fair argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
lol that a basic human need like housing contains the very concept of 'equity'
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
I can understand how a tenant covering the cost of upgrading someone else’s property is bad, since they’re paying to increase the value of something they won’t see any monetary value for, but what’s the argument against maintenance costs? If we limit the costs to wear and tear in the tenant’s living space and a portion of that in common areas that they use, I would argue that the tenant’s use of that space contributes to that wear and tear and thus it would be fair for the tenant to pay for it, much like it’s fair for the tenant to pay for a portion of the utilities. (Also is there a better word than “tenant” to describe someone who lives in a building that they do not own, regardless of whether or not they pay rent?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
Boarder?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
blastron posted:I can understand how a tenant covering the cost of upgrading someone else’s property is bad, since they’re paying to increase the value of something they won’t see any monetary value for, but what’s the argument against maintenance costs? If we limit the costs to wear and tear in the tenant’s living space and a portion of that in common areas that they use, I would argue that the tenant’s use of that space contributes to that wear and tear and thus it would be fair for the tenant to pay for it, much like it’s fair for the tenant to pay for a portion of the utilities. you're subsidizing their future ability to sell or rent it at a higher price than they could have if you weren't paying to maintain someone else's property. since it isn't losing any value due to your living there, it will be worth more when it's time for you to move out than it would have been if you weren't paying maintenance costs, therefore you should be entitled to at least that share of equity, since it came out of your pocket and not the owner's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
Right the flaw in my quick hypothetical is that the "landlord", while not generating profit for itself isn't bringing anything to the relationship other than owning the building already. So if the tenant is living in the building and already paying the expenses for maintenance and communal upkeep, why shouldn't they just own the apartment outright? It would still be a better situation than an actual landlord that seeks to profit off of renting living spaces, but it's still not an entirely fair transaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
basically if you own a place and rent it out for more than (property taxes/12) per month while covering all maintenance costs it’s exploitative. in this case the renter is responsible for all utilities/furniture. even charging just what you’re paying for the mortgage is still extracting at least 2.9% (or whatever) in profits from your tenant, even if that money never hits your pocket. hell, I’ll even allow you to charge [(property taxes + tax filing expenses)/12] per month. any more than that and you’re a parasite indigi has issued a correction as of 22:00 on Jul 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
indigi posted:you're subsidizing their future ability to sell or rent it at a higher price than they could have if you weren't paying to maintain someone else's property. since it isn't losing any value due to your living there, it will be worth more when it's time for you to move out than it would have been if you weren't paying maintenance costs, therefore you should be entitled to at least that share of equity, since it came out of your pocket and not the owner's. I'm having trouble with the idea that wear and tear due to someone living in a space does not decrease its value. To be very clear, I'm not talking about things like replacing a damaged roof or upkeeping a lawn, which are things that would need to be done regardless of whether or not someone was living in a space and are thus 100% the responsibility of the property owner. I am specifically talking about damage incurred over the course of an occupant's time living in the space. I'm going to use the very specific example of a broken bathroom mirror here because there's a clear line of responsibility. If an occupant accidentally breaks a mirror, then that's direct damage to the property. Since we're apparently ignoring the livability of a space and only talking about its resale value, any attempt to sell the property in the future will be hindered by the broken mirror. Damage has been done to the property by the occupant. Why is the occupant not responsible for this damage? I also acknowledge that a repair may leave the property in a better state than it would have been if the occupant was not present, and agree that the occupant should not be forced to pay that difference. To use a different, longer-term example, if a carpet is worn and needs to be replaced, but the occupant was only in the space for part of the carpet's lifespan, then they should not pay for the entire replacement, and they should definitely not pay anything more if the replacement is fancier or trendier. I'm also not suggesting a regular $XX/month charge that the owner would pocket in the name of ongoing maintenance costs, which is just normal rent, and on the flip side I'm also assuming that the owner would not unilaterally declare that a long-term maintenance task like replacing carpeting should be done on short notice and thus force a large, unexpected expense on the occupant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
blastron posted:I'm having trouble with the idea that wear and tear due to someone living in a space does not decrease its value. it does decrease its value, that's what living in a place does. if the owner let it go unrented, barring acts of god/natural disasters it would retain its original value. no broken mirrors, no scuffed walls. paying to offset that decrease in value is what I object to, because paying for that upkeep in no way benefits the tenant (beyond a matter of convenience, I suppose). they're merely subsidizing the owner's future earnings. if the owner didn't want a mirror broken, don't put a mirror in there. tenant brings their own mirror in, tenant leaves with mirror. "but this would lower the amount they could charge for rent!" why on Earth would I care about that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
indigi posted:it does decrease its value, that's what living in a place does. if the owner let it go unrented, barring acts of god/natural disasters it would retain its original value. no broken mirrors, no scuffed walls. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your larger point, but abandoned houses absolutely deteriorate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
oh sure if we're expanding it out to ~decade scale, I was talking about typical lease term length
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
indigi posted:it does decrease its value, that's what living in a place does. if the owner let it go unrented, barring acts of god/natural disasters it would retain its original value. no broken mirrors, no scuffed walls. I am still not understanding this. If you need to make a call and I lend you my phone, then you drop it and crack the screen, would your argument be that you bear no responsibility to fix it since fixing the screen wouldn't benefit you at all? That if I didn't want my screen broken I shouldn't have lent you my phone? I wonder if the disconnect is a matter of scale. I'm operating under the assumption that we're talking about an individual with extra space like a mother-in-law unit that they're letting someone else live in rent-free, not someone or a group that owns space for the purpose of letting other people live in it. Does that make a difference? indigi posted:"but this would lower the amount they could charge for rent!" why on Earth would I care about that? Agreed, but at what point do I mention rent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:18
|
|