Why does the Coli hate landlord's so much?

[Dorian Breh]

Because freeloaders think they deserve a free home, faked on their contract, and instead of just moving out, was given protection to be hoarders for months.. aka something that never happened in the history of america

They'll have new renters the day they are able and would have been just fine without the government coming in and blocking them from doing so. THEY didn't do anything wrong. THEY were fine and affording these places



I'm going to say what I keep saying and asking what I keep asking. That NONE of you have addressed....

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN??

I am not for raping people for rent. I'm not for overcharging when you don't need it. I'm not talking about a company that got 500 properties. I'm not talking about the managers office at your apt building. I'm talking about normal ass people, who may have land, two homes, etc etc etc....

What's the law gonna be? You can only own one home? So what if I'm like dude and my job don't makes it so renting is better... Who the fukk am I renting from? What if I don't want to own a house? Who am I renting from? What if I'm rich and I want 50 acres? What if I have a farm and I sell off the farm portion? What about my parents house when they die? I got a mom with a house and a dad.. I'll have three houses.. Who determines who I sell them too? Who pays if I can't sell them? What if the profit don't cover what I have to do to sell it? What if I want the land but I want to demolish the house? Does that count?




See how deep we can get it. On some "fukk all landlords" No... fukk SLUMLORDS.. fukk people trying to live like Diddy, based on raping poor people. That's usually not the fukking landlord. That's usually a company. Y'all are mad at the wrong people and have zero solution on how to fix the problem. But mad at me cause I said get a cheaper house, farther away, that you can afford, instead of yelling at "landlords" when you have zero idea what is going on financially or asset wise, to even know why you so damn mad.


Guess what... None of us have house in cash money.. We all gotta borrow.. Like for our car, credit cards, and a host of other shyt. Let someone hit you with all this shyt, about how you a dummy cause you only had downpayment money. nikkas got 2-3-5 cars with two drivers but mad a man with 2 houses and says he should be forced to sell it.. But not, you should be forced to live where you could afford

Man, you’ve been describing yourself this whole thread!

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

And for the record:

13. The Average Landlord Has Three Properties
On average, landlords have three properties to their name. The value of those properties isn’t necessarily through the roof: 40% of landlords own less than $200,000 worth of property, and an additional 30% fall in the $200,000-$400,000 range. Only 30% of landlords own properties worth $400,000 or more, with 7% at the top owning properties worth $1 million or more.



17. Half of Single Property Landlords Purchased the Property as a Primary Residence
When it comes to single property landlords, 50% of them didn’t initially buy it as an investment property. Instead, the unit began as their primary residence, later transitioning into a rental property.



But yea.... Skip the corporations who own most of these places and label them all hoarders who bought the places to fukk over poor people

Man, you’ve been describing yourself this whole thread!

I don't even know what the fukk y'all talking about anymore

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm going to say what I keep saying and asking what I keep asking. That NONE of you have addressed....

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN??

I would be in favor of a law that greatly increased property taxes on homes that weren't being lived in by the owner while the profits were used to subsidize 1st-time homebuyers.

I would also strongly tighten up mortgage laws that would curtail the ease with which speculators are able to take out large loans in order to buy up properties they can't actually afford with the hopes of getting renters to pay off the mortgages until they flip it for profit. Such behavior has both vastly driven up housing costs in high-demand regions while also contributing highly to the real estate collapse in 2007 when those speculators just quit on their "investment" properties the moment they went underwater and defaulted at higher rates than primary homeowners did.

I would also be in favor of some sort of reasonable limit on the amount of land any one person/corporation could own in America. No one put the fukking land here, it's been here for millions of years. You shouldn't be able to hoard vast quantities of land that you had nothing to do with creating solely because wealth inequality is fukking out of control.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

I would be in favor of a law that greatly increased property taxes on homes that weren't being lived in by the owner while the profits were used to subsidize 1st-time homebuyers.

I would also strongly tighten up mortgage laws that would curtail the ease with which speculators are able to take out large loans in order to buy up properties they can't actually afford with the hopes of getting renters to pay off the mortgages until they flip it for profit. Such behavior has both vastly driven up housing costs in high-demand regions while also contributing highly to the real estate collapse in 2007 when those speculators just quit on their "investment" properties the moment they went underwater and defaulted at higher rates than primary homeowners did.

I would also be in favor of some sort of reasonable limit on the amount of land any one person/corporation could own in America. No one put the fukking land here, it's been here for millions of years. You shouldn't be able to hoard vast quantities of land that you had nothing to do with creating solely because wealth inequality is fukking out of control.

I like the first two. And thank you for actually giving a well thought out answer that wasn't "death to landlords" That was the only issue I kept seeing. People just wrap a blanket around property owners and put on every label and reason and don't know the facts....


I only dislike the third one, because I am strongly against any type of limits on people. If someone invents a time machine, he should be able to get every single dollar from his hard work. If someone has money, he should be able to buy whatever he wants. If he got the bread to buy 500 acres, then who should say no you don't need it... But walmart gets 500 acres per city... And also you know the rich gonna buy the prime real estate regardless. If it was 50 acres a person, the rich would have all the acres in cali and ny and florida and leave us to montana and shyt... The same places there's cheap land for sale right now, that nobody wants to live in.

I think the taxes would be the big thing that leveled the playing field.. Although I do believe that they'd find ways around that shyt too. Kids each get a house or paying people to "live" there or however else they get around it... Or simply buy up everything in other countries..



But all in all.. That was the best damn post I seen in here yet.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

And for the record:

13. The Average Landlord Has Three Properties
On average, landlords have three properties to their name. The value of those properties isn’t necessarily through the roof: 40% of landlords own less than $200,000 worth of property, and an additional 30% fall in the $200,000-$400,000 range. Only 30% of landlords own properties worth $400,000 or more, with 7% at the top owning properties worth $1 million or more.

First off, the article's source is a different article from 2016, that cited an undated survey that is self-reported data from a national sample by "TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions". So the numbers are clearly higher now considering how much property value grew in the last five years, and probably weren't even scientific in the first place.

On top of that, go back and look and the initial survey is clearly asking them how much property they rent out, NOT how much they own total (exact word were "Renting Stats: Average Total Value"). Their overall property ownership is going to be much higher if you count personal residence and other property that they own but don't rent.

You go back to the survey, and it said 11% of respondents "manage but don't own". So the respondents weren't even all landlords, they included people who didn't own any of it at all? That would pull down the averages and make the scientific basis even more in doubt.


But let's pretend for a moment the data is correct, even though it's outdated and unscientific....


* it shows that the median landlord is renting out 3 properties worth ~$300,000 combined.

* meanwhile, the median Black family in America owns 0 properties and has just $13,000 in net worth.

* even the median Black household with a graduate degree only has $70,000 in net worth


So even though it doesn't sound like much to you, the difference between the median landlord and the median Black family is very, very large. And I can't find any statistics for how many Black landlords there are, but overall in America about 10% of families are landlords. Considering that median White wealth is 15x higher than median Black wealth, that would suggest, what, perhaps 3% of Black households are landlords compared to the 60% who are forced to rent?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

First off, the article's source is a different article from 2016, that cited an undated survey that is self-reported data from a national sample by "TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions". So the numbers are clearly higher now considering how much property value grew in the last five years, and probably weren't even scientific in the first place.

On top of that, go back and look and the initial survey is clearly asking them how much property they rent out, NOT how much they own total (exact word were "Renting Stats: Average Total Value"). Their overall property ownership is going to be much higher if you count personal residence and other property that they own but don't rent.

You go back to the survey, and it said 11% of respondents "manage but don't own". So the respondents weren't even all landlords, they included people who didn't own any of it at all? That would pull down the averages and make the scientific basis even more in doubt.


But let's pretend for a moment the data is correct, even though it's outdated and unscientific....


* it shows that the median landlord is renting out 3 properties worth ~$300,000 combined.

* meanwhile, the median Black family in America owns 0 properties and has just $13,000 in net worth.

* even the median Black household with a graduate degree only has $70,000 in net worth


So even though it doesn't sound like much to you, the difference between the median landlord and the median Black family is very, very large. And I can't find any statistics for how many Black landlords there are, but overall in America about 10% of families are landlords. Considering that median White wealth is 15x higher than median Black wealth, that would suggest, what, perhaps 3% of Black households are landlords compared to the 60% who are forced to rent?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/

Lets go directly to the gov

1. 10.6 Million Americans Earn Income from Rental Properties
Approximately 10.6 million American tax filers declared rental income when they filed their taxes. That means about 7.1% of 1040 filers could potentially be landlords.

Additionally, they noted income earned from about 17.7 million properties.

Source: Internal Revenue Service



10.6 divided by 17.7 would put it at around the same exact numbers..




But again... my point is simply that all landlords aren't the evil slumlords and rich fat cats living off the broke and poor...


It's more regular ass people, with an extra property or two, trying to supplement income. Most don't even buy the shyt to do that... I mean what about house flippers? Aren't they the ones actually buying the affordable homes and then pricing them out after the fix up? It's not the man getting a 400k home and then renting it right back out for $2000 a month.. That man is not balling and doesn't deserve your anger

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I like the first two. And thank you for actually giving a well thought out answer that wasn't "death to landlords" That was the only issue I kept seeing. People just wrap a blanket around property owners and put on every label and reason and don't know the facts....


I only dislike the third one, because I am strongly against any type of limits on people. If someone invents a time machine, he should be able to get every single dollar from his hard work. If someone has money, he should be able to buy whatever he wants. If he got the bread to buy 500 acres, then who should say no you don't need it... But walmart gets 500 acres per city... And also you know the rich gonna buy the prime real estate regardless. If it was 50 acres a person, the rich would have all the acres in cali and ny and florida and leave us to montana and shyt... The same places there's cheap land for sale right now, that nobody wants to live in.

I think the taxes would be the big thing that leveled the playing field.. Although I do believe that they'd find ways around that shyt too. Kids each get a house or paying people to "live" there or however else they get around it... Or simply buy up everything in other countries..



But all in all.. That was the best damn post I seen in here yet.

Thanks for the props breh.

The 3rd one is based on God's word from the Bible, makes sense that you wouldn't like it.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Thanks for the props breh.

The 3rd one is based on God's word from the Bible, makes sense that you wouldn't like it.

I take on the Catholic Devil's Advocate and not the movie version... Although Pacino just makes it funnier

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Lets go directly to the gov

1. 10.6 Million Americans Earn Income from Rental Properties
Approximately 10.6 million American tax filers declared rental income when they filed their taxes. That means about 7.1% of 1040 filers could potentially be landlords.

Additionally, they noted income earned from about 17.7 million properties.

Source: Internal Revenue Service

10.6 divided by 17.7 would put it at around the same exact numbers

I can't tell what you're calculating, but I was referring to the claim that the middle group of landlords owns just $200,000-$400,000 in property.

That "17.7 million properties" has to include multi-family properties, because there are 43 million renting households in America.

Also, that link shows that the median household income for renters is $37,000/year. That's the MEDIAN income, meaning half make even less than that. 64% of renters are classified as "low income" (meaning they make less than 80% of the median income in their area) and 26% are "very low income" (meaning they make less than 30% of median income). The median net worth of a renting household is $5,000.

$5,000 in net worth and making $37,000 a year. I hope you can understand why they can't just "choose" to own.

 

[Contrefaire]

Most people will live their entire life without ever being evicted and less than half will even know someone personally that has been evicted but let the coli tell it and every homeowner is Thanos coming for the final Infinity Stone.

Props to you for dusting off stale talking points from the pre-Pandemic-Playbook and presenting them as brand new concepts while ignoring our current economic plight I guess.

 

[DuncanWebayama]

these nikkas really said "why do landlords think the government is gonna take away their property".

Because they live in a house and rent one nikka, it's a fair hustle and a great investment. And yall do know something like "the median net worth for a black family with a graduate degree is 70k"

Because networth takes into account debt.Net worth is not based on salary!

A 70k networth for a graduate degree is not bad. Just because you making 100k don't mean you gonna have a 100k net worth...

 

[Iceson Beckford]

I would be in favor of a law that greatly increased property taxes on homes that weren't being lived in by the owner while the profits were used to subsidize 1st-time homebuyers.

I would also strongly tighten up mortgage laws that would curtail the ease with which speculators are able to take out large loans in order to buy up properties they can't actually afford with the hopes of getting renters to pay off the mortgages until they flip it for profit. Such behavior has both vastly driven up housing costs in high-demand regions while also contributing highly to the real estate collapse in 2007 when those speculators just quit on their "investment" properties the moment they went underwater and defaulted at higher rates than primary homeowners did.

I would also be in favor of some sort of reasonable limit on the amount of land any one person/corporation could own in America. No one put the fukking land here, it's been here for millions of years. You shouldn't be able to hoard vast quantities of land that you had nothing to do with creating solely because wealth inequality is fukking out of control.

I’m a studying Mortgage Broker and this was a great post breh. I don’t feel strongly either way on the topic but you made some very convincing arguments throughout this thread.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

I can't tell what you're calculating, but I was referring to the claim that the middle group of landlords owns just $200,000-$400,000 in property.

That "17.7 million properties" has to include multi-family properties, because there are 43 million renting households in America.

Also, that link shows that the median household income for renters is $37,000/year. That's the MEDIAN income, meaning half make even less than that. 64% of renters are classified as "low income" (meaning they make less than 80% of the median income in their area) and 26% are "very low income" (meaning they make less than 30% of median income). The median net worth of a renting household is $5,000.

$5,000 in net worth and making $37,000 a year. I hope you can understand why they can't just "choose" to own.

Ok follow me here because you guys have really taken my stream of thoughts and took them out of context...


If I make 50k a year, lets say I should be finding a $150k house. Whether my landlord exists or I'm living with my brother, I still need the down payment, the credit, the job history, etc etc etc... Now the landlord is going to charge me to live there, but so would my brother unless he can afford to house an adult male for free. Which of course means, I'm eating into his money. Maybe he charges me just enough to break even. But still. He's given up a part of his home and life to me, and I'm not paying what it's worth, cause he could airbnb that and get more.

Landlord didn't prevent you from buying........


Ok but if the landlord owns 15 houses and there's a lot of them around, then they buy up all the houses and raise the values, then we can't afford to live there or barely can afford it............. Ok so why didn't you have the same money to buy the house when it was cheap and obviously empty or for sale? You know someone owned that home too? Didn't they need to sell it? Didn't they get it appraised? Didn't the bank set the terms of what it sells for? Do you think the landlord also slangs his own real estate too??

Landlord didn't prevent you from buying.......


If someone has the money, credit, etc but maybe there's nothing around them in their range, who's fault is that? We really gonna blame rising housing costs on landlords? Do y'all know how gentrification works? It ain't the damn landlords that's doing it. It's the governments and big corporations, buying entire apt buildings, throwing people out, and raising the rent 300%. That brings in the stores and police and laws to keep it "nice." Landlord with his 5 unit triplex is the reason why it costs 1.5 million to live in Brooklyn now?


Landlord didn't stop you from looking elsewhere. Yea it's fukking hard to move. Yea it's fukking hard to save when you broke. Yea I was born in North Philly and my folks didn't get a home until I was in VA 15 years later. But they wanted one and it was get a shytty one in philly or keep on searching till you find a place you like and also can afford. If I couldn't afford a house in NYC, i'd look to see what I can do in ATL, or NC, or somewhere else. If I didn't want to live out there, and I love NYC... Then I better get fukking money cause NYC expensive. Or live in jersey and drive... Or get acres in pa and take a train



All I'm saying is stop pointing the finger at some bum ass landlord. If you wanted to own a home, you could. Most just want their starter home to be their ending home and don't want the fixer upper or the out the way spot.

Life ain't fair. Sometimes you gotta get the apt, then the townhouse, then buy a townhouse, then sell that for the shytty house, then fix that up, then sell that, THEN get the fly crib later in life... While also maintaining the other aspects, and saving, and getting education and..........................


It's life man.... Survive... Ain't no time to be blaming the landlord

 

[SadimirPutin]

So renters everywhere except the coli love their landlords?

I was here thinking the same thing

Since when did landlords become this highly loved and adored subset of people

foh

 

[Absolut]

I was here thinking the same thing

Since when did landlords become this highly loved and adored subset of people

foh

Most folks the relationship is cordial, and the assumption is they will pay rent in order to live there. Now suddenly some think they are just entitled to live in someone else’s house even when not paying rent, and instead of saying “well, yea, no shyt you can’t stay in someone else property for free ” people say “fukk landlords”