I don't know what you millenial z's or something keep complaining about - just buy a detached single family house with a backyard in the city for 125k and pay up your 1% interest rate mortgage within 10 years while your wife keeps it clean and drinks herself to death while resenting you daily, like any civilized 30 year old with a job for life and guaranteed payout pension does!
Is the /s really necessary?
Man. Every time I see it again spelled out, how smooth these disingenuous decrepit assholes had it when they were my age, I start wishing for a claymore and a stump.
Is the /s really necessary?
Depending on the age range, someone might think you are being serious. I'd just leave it.
If someone thinks you are serious this would prove the dystopian reality even more haha
Paying a bank hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest is also robbery. what did the bank do? Were rich and did paperwork. Wow so irreplaceable and valuable. Think of all the poor people they swindled to get there! Amazing 😍
The bank isnt even that rich... They are allowed to just dream up the money from nothing and lend it to you.
And if you miss a payment, they get to reposses a real asset.
This is the biggest scam in history. The bank lends you imaginary money, and then reposesses a real asset
Disclaimer: not advocating for current system.
What alternative would you propose for providing loans?
My controversial (for Lemmy) take is that loans are good for society. They provide an incentive to not hoard resources, but provide them to those who want to put them into action today for future benefit.
A good loan benefits both parties, ie. An auto loan that allows someone to buy a car to get to a job to earn an income that is above the cost of the loan. Without the loan that person couldn't get to work and whatever service they were providing to society is lost.
All that said - that doesn't mean the way loans work today is the best solution, but the same functionality of trading current and future resources needs to exist. You don't have to call it a loan, and it doesn't have to be performed by private for profit institutions, but if you want a thriving economy I believe you need this function carried out somehow.
The equivalent function in Communism is (or historically has been) a centrally planned resource allocation which very clearly is a horrible idea because of the incentives towards corruption. If you take a literal interpretation of communism (instead of historical) where "the workers own the means of production" trade unions could fulfill this current to future resource allocation function. I do not know if this would create the same corruption as single central authority, but my gut feels is that it would (based on the US labor union and organized crime affiliation of the past.
In short, the current function for trading current and future resources (ie. loans) is far from ideal, but I have not found an alternate that provides more benefits than deficits. I would love to learn about more alternatives, but just saying 'loans R bad' makes it sound like you're advocating getting rid of them with nothing to handle their underlying function, which is a terrible idea.
I think a lot of folks have a fundamental misunderstanding of how loans work. The banks don't get to just magically conjure up as much money as that want. It is backed by actual money/assets and federal regulations require a certain ratio between what the bank has loaned and the amount of money they have readily on hand.
I agree that it's not a perfect system, and I definitely think "businesses" that offer those sketchy payday loan arrangements should be illegal, as they often price gouge the shit out of the interest rates (in fact, I believe many states have outlawed them). But I don't know of a better solution that isn't dependent on a utopian-esque idea.
I don't know that the loan concept is what's broken as much as the idea of the bank itself. To me, the idea of credit unions makes a pretty good alternative to banks. At least every CU I've belonged to has been owned by the members, and the profits they made were used to subsidize interest rates for members needing a loan or, in some cases, a portion was paid out as a dividend at the end of the year to members.
And even if the bank owns 90% of the home you are still on the hook to pay the full property taxes.
I'm pretty sure banks don't just make up money but I'd be interested in finding out why you think they do.
I agree with you. And yeah it's bizarre that loans are literally just a privilege that banks get...to create new money out of thin fucking air. I agree--Biggest scam in history.
But Isn't that how all business works?
Customers pay for things and that payment pays to keep the business going.
Something Something housing should be a right not a business
The business in this case being what? What good or service is being provided? Landlords didn't create the land, nor did they build the residence, nor did they improve its value by building a community around it. They are benefiting off of the work of others simply because they "own" it. The most common arguments I hear in support of landlords are:
Landlords take on risk. For example, when I rented an apartment, I came home one day to a plumbing disaster. I called emergency maintenance and left. The landlord fixed it and paid for my hotel in the meantime. As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out. I'm pretty handy, but I have no disrespect for someone who doesn't want to be responsible for that.
More importantly, selling a house costs about 10% of the value of the house, and the first few years of a mortgage you're mostly paying interest. If you move every 3 years, it's actually cheaper to rent than to buy. It's just that your money is going to a landlord instead of to banks and realtors.
So while I see your argument that landlords don't "deserve" the money they make, practically they're an important part of the housing market, and I respect people who make an informed decision to rent.
And people who have no choice but to rent, and get fucked over repeatedly because of it?
Risk my ass, they take in profit off of doing nothing.
As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out.
Guess what? In the mean time, you've paid for these repairs with your rent, plus the repairs of any other property the landlord has.
If you move every 3 years
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.
practically they’re an important part of the housing market
Non sequitur, none of your arguments support this conclusion.
If you want the current rent model so much, do you know who could do the exact same job much cheaper? The State itself.
I live comfortably in a 2 story, 3 bedroom that I own and I'm able to put enough into savings each month that I'm easily able to afford any emergencies that come up.
Looking at local prices, I would not be able to rent of a much smaller unit where I live.
The actual 'need' for rent could be easily covered by people renting out their basement suite or having a boarder. There's no benefit to society for allowing people to purchase properties they don't live on just to profit off someone else's rent.
The two big main ones I can think of.
They provide short term housing. If your only planning to say 1-2 years in a location it often doesn't make much sense to buy a house.
They also take on all of risk of the property.
Obviously I am not saying landlords are the greatest thing in the world but they do serve a purpose.
Two years ago I became a first time homeowner. I'm moving in 6 months and am going to keep this property and rent it out. I cannot afford to buy another house almost anywhere in the US. I will be renting. However, I closed on this place with 3% interest and pay $1500/mo for the mortgage, plus about $250 for utilities. Round up to $1800/mo. Anyone buying at today's interest and value with 20% down is looking at a mortgage of about $2300/mo, before utilities.
I absolutely resent this market, but I refuse to let this place go into the hands of anyone like Blackrock. And since I don't care about maximizing profit, I can keep the rate on the lower end and help someone live here for a few hundred a month less than they could with a new sale. I can rent it for $1700-1800/mo to cover incidentals and repair and still let a renter live here for less than a new mortgage.
I've been toying with the idea of counting every dollar the renter pays against the mortgage and selling to them at the difference when (if) rates come back down.
Certainly not ideal, and a little bit apologetic, but in this situation it's about as close as I can get to a win-win. Or least lost-least lost.
Some people don't want to be locked down to one place for long. When I was in my twenties I moved to a different town every year when my lease was up just to see if I would like it better somewhere else. Or I'd get a raise and be able to afford a better place the next year. For people that want relatively short term housing, renting is a far superior option.
If I took out a mortgage on a place and then sold it a year later, I'd have almost no equity since you pay almost all interest in the front part of the loan.
Is this post saying that if the landlord CAN afford the house without you paying rent, then it's justified, and in that case they ARE providing you housing?
In the same way GPU and game console scalpers were generously, out of the goodness of their heart providing GPUs and game consoles to the masses.
Yeah I had the same thought, this post doesn't make a very good anti-landlord argument if in the case the renters stop paying, then both they and the landlord lose their homes.
Thanks for reminding me to pay rent today :/
Although I agree with the sentiment - I am curious how the system works with landlords having so many unoccupied units in some cities. Especially business/commercial/industrial landlords. It keeps rent artificially high, while reducing some types of overhead I would guess.
Speculation. Some investors are more interested in holding the property until they can sell it in the future for a profit, rather than the rent they would earn now. Some landlords will have negative cashflow even if they are charging rent because they know they can sell the property for a profit later.
Rent is robbery... But your landlord is poorer than you? What?
People with diverse skills or able to remote work, move to the Midwest and rural mountain states. Swing them blue and get all the mcmansions you want.
No one said that landlord's are poor, landlord's quite literally leech off of their tenants pay checks, making them even richer than they were to start, without lifting a finger, or contributing anything to society.
Can you do the duck one pleeese?
