Why does the Coli hate landlord's so much?

[CrimsonTider]

Are you a landlord?

No but what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Wild self]

Interesting, when I make threads about a rapper spending $XXX on jewelry or cars the first thing posters say is that was a dumb purchase why didn’t they buy land or property.

Never meant to exploit the less fortunate. Invest for someone to live in WITHOUT HASSLE

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The taxes would come from whatever rent is collected dumbass, that means it eats into any potential profit. Let’s also not forget maintenance with either trips to Home Depot or paying someone to fix said items which means additional out of pocket expenses the renter doesn’t pay.

How am I the dumbass in that scenario?

Look at your mentality. I pointed out that the renter is the one that pays the property taxes (and all other expenses, for that matter) because it all comes from THEIR income that they earned with THEIR hard work, and your answer is that no, that money is really the landlord's because it ate into their potential profit?

You're literally assuming that all the income the renter earned from their actual job doesn't belong to them. You're saying that any money the renter earns that doesn't ultimately end up in the landlord's pockets should rightfully should be counted as the landlord's lost profit .

 

[JLova]

No but what does that have to do with anything?

You are arguing from one perspective. You have no clue what the other side is like.

 

[JLova]

Could you imagine leasing executive rentals to high income individuals and some clown tells you you're exploiting poor people. GTFOH

 

[JuvenileHell]

Slumlords in here mad as hell

 

[Wild self]

Slumlords in here mad as hell

They think tthat money is INFINITE and believe housing is a privilege, not a human right

 

[Scholar]

Lot of landlords put themselves in a bad situation by being over leveraged . Whose fault is that

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm all for fighting income inequality. Go after politicians in the pocket with banks, lobbyists, etc.

Going after landlords who have an average income of 94K?

It's the exact same system of exploitation. Learn about economic rents. You're basically saying that exploitation is okay if you're "only" a little rich.

And you're missing that those people are making money off their capital gains of increasing property value in addition to their annual income, so pretending their income is "only" $97,000/year is somewhat misleading.

No I realize I'm dealing with someone who's completely lost.

That's not an argument.

You also seem to have no idea what the difference is between a landlord and a slumlord.

That's also not an argument.

And lastly if you don't understand the value landlords add then there's no reasoning with someone like you.

And strike three, your entire "case" is that you have no argument.

There's landlords that literally make no money and charge cheap rent and you're sitting here acting like they're destroying peoples livelihoods.

Of course I'm not talking about them.

I'm talking about people who exploit the poor by profiting off of their need. If you're not profiting off them then you're not the problem.

Still trying to undrstand how someone who earns has a day job and owns an extra property or two that he rents out to people is less productive to society than the people he's renting the property. Completely bewildering logic.

We ain't talking about their hypothetical day job, productive work is always productive no matter who does it, but here we are talking about their role as a landlord.



I'll spell it out real slow for you.....

a. If you perform productive work that adds something to society, you are being productive. It's that easy.

b. If you profit merely because you happen to own something that someone poorer than you doesn't own but desperately needs, and nothing is produced by the exchange, then no productive work has been done.


But if you think I know nothing about economics, should I bring someone else into the equation? How about, say, Adam Smith?

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the license to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land..."

“The rent of land, it may be thought, is frequently no more than a reasonable profit or interest for the stock laid out by the landlord upon its improvement. This, no doubt, may be partly the case upon some occasions.... The landlord demands” (1) “a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvement is generally an addition to this original rent.” (2) “Those improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent as if they had been all made by his own.” (3) “He sometimes demands rent for what is altogether incapable of human improvement.”

“The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.”

“The landlords,” says Say, “operate a certain kind of monopoly against the tenants. The demand for their commodity, site and soil, can go on expanding indefinitely; but there is only a given, limited amount of their commodity.... The bargain struck between landlord and tenant is always advantageous to the former in the greatest possible degree.... Besides the advantage he derives from the nature of the case, he derives a further advantage from his position, his larger fortune and greater credit and standing. But the first by itself suffices to enable him and him alone to profit from the favorable circumstances of the land. The opening of a canal, or a road; the increase of population and of the prosperity of a district, always raises the rent.... Indeed, the tenant himself may improve the ground at his own expense; but he only derives the profit from this capital for the duration of his lease, with the expiry of which it remains with the proprietor of the land; henceforth it is the latter who reaps the interest thereon, without having made the outlay, for there is now a proportionate increase in the rent.”

So go ahead and tell Adam Smith he knows nothing about economics either, if you are so inclined.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

You oversimplify things. Just save money, don't worry about the fact that I have debt to pay off. Just move, not worrying about the fact that I need to secure a job that pays enough sustain my living. Just borrow money, who in their right mind would lend money at good rates to debters. There's way more protections for business than people.

No fam it's NOT simple.. I made it simple for you and you laughing but not answering the question at all

If there was suddenly a one house limit tomorrow... What do you feel would change, that would make everyone suddenly be able to afford a house?

Seems to me, that the problems you are listing, would still exist. Because unless you're buying a house at 18, or living at home with mom until you afford one, you're still going to need to rent

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

This is one of those "poor people are too stupid to own property" arguments.

Y'all ignore that for most of human history, EVERYONE outside of slaves, indentured servants, and feudal serfs owned their own fukking home. It was NORMAL to own your own home. Even dumbass rednecks and Appalachian hillbillies own their own home.

The whole idea that 1/2 of society would be incapable of figuring out how to own a home didn't come until rich people got so much wealth they could buy up literally all available land and then dictate the terms for how everyone else gets to live.

It's not stupidity... It's money and comfort.....


You do know you can go out, just like all of history like you said.... And buy some cheap land and build your own house? You can get acresssssssssssssssssss with 20k... You can get shytty houses and fix them up... You can get a trailer and just put it on land till you get the money... You can build it slowly over time, just buy the land.....



But see people want exactly what my man above said.......... They want a nice house, with bedrooms, on land, near the place they work, don't wanna have to drive now, with good schools, and close to town, and a walmart nearby, and and and and and and and


And that shyt costs $500k... But instead of starting off with something for 100k and working towards the 500k... You'd rather rent something for $900 cause it's all those things... It's just not YOURS. And when shyt breaks you call another man. And when the taxes due they go to another man. And when you don't pay your rent it falls on another man....

But that man is the man stopping you from owning that same place??? Yea shyt is fukked up. Rich get richer.. Are you going to get your own fukking place or not? You might have to commute farther and your shyt may not be as nice, but do you want your own shyt or nah?


People back in the days wasn't moving into luxury off the bat either. The peasants houses were shytty ones back then too. The rich had multiple houses then too.. The poor worked the fields to pay "rent" too... Banks wasn't loaning out to people with bad credit in the 30s either..

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Grocery stores don’t lord their goods over their clientele, they actually need to be competitive and provide a standard of goods, unlike most landlords who are simply enjoying the massive leverage with which they currently find themselves

Most landlords make $200-400 extra month... That's not including all the taxes, repairs and upkeep they pay


I'd hardly say an extra $4800 a year is lording your goods

 

[Dorian Breh]

Most landlords make $200-400 extra month... That's not including all the taxes, repairs and upkeep they pay


I'd hardly say an extra $4800 a year is lording your goods

That number doesn’t include the mortgage payments and property taxes they’re literally getting someone else to pay off for them, which could be anywhere in the 24k-72k range

Edit: 24k-72k for a SINGLE unit

 

[Nicole0416_718_929_646212]

Slumlords in here mad as hell

Lot of landlords put themselves in a bad situation by being over leveraged . Whose fault is that

They think tthat money is INFINITE and believe housing is a privilege, not a human right

Luv to see it. Great responses in here sirs.

 

[Nicole0416_718_929_646212]

It's not stupidity... It's money and comfort.....


You do know you can go out, just like all of history like you said.... And buy some cheap land and build your own house? You can get acresssssssssssssssssss with 20k... You can get shytty houses and fix them up... You can get a trailer and just put it on land till you get the money... You can build it slowly over time, just buy the land.....



But see people want exactly what my man above said.......... They want a nice house, with bedrooms, on land, near the place they work, don't wanna have to drive now, with good schools, and close to town, and a walmart nearby, and and and and and and and


And that shyt costs $500k... But instead of starting off with something for 100k and working towards the 500k... You'd rather rent something for $900 cause it's all those things... It's just not YOURS. And when shyt breaks you call another man. And when the taxes due they go to another man. And when you don't pay your rent it falls on another man....

But that man is the man stopping you from owning that same place??? Yea shyt is fukked up. Rich get richer.. Are you going to get your own fukking place or not? You might have to commute farther and your shyt may not be as nice, but do you want your own shyt or nah?


People back in the days wasn't moving into luxury off the bat either. The peasants houses were shytty ones back then too. The rich had multiple houses then too.. The poor worked the fields to pay "rent" too... Banks wasn't loaning out to people with bad credit in the 30s either..

Dafuq are you rambling about??

The only thing I got out of this overly long nonsense rant was where the f do you live where rent is only $900??!!! (Amenities included). I’m paying 3x that + utilities(water, sewage, gas, trash, and electric)