Current Events > Twitter to landlords; investing is a risk don't be mad tenants cannot pay rent.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wait, are you the same "dirtydog" that posts white supremacist rhetoric on the CE subreddit? That would certainly explain the stupidity of your posts if so
---

averagejoel posted...

okay. you should hold landlords to at least the same standard as the people renting from them. that is; they should be responsible for having enough in savings that they are not dependent on their investment to stay afloat

A non-paying tenant could end up owing thousands very quickly, even tens of thousands if there is a rule preventing evictions due to Covid. That is exactly what has been happening in the UK. Some tenants who CAN PAY are simply NOT PAYING because they are immune from being evicted.

Most landlords are not rich, they usually own ONE rental property and have a full time job and a mortgage on the rental as well as their home property.

---

Lmao, he blocked me. Less dumb shit on my screen now
---

dirtydog posted...

A non-paying tenant could end up owing thousands very quickly, even tens of thousands if there is a rule preventing evictions due to Covid. That is exactly what has been happening in the UK. Some tenants who CAN PAY are simply NOT PAYING because they are immune from being evicted.

Most landlords are not rich, they usually own ONE rental property and have a full time job and a mortgage on the rental as well as their home property.

landlords are the ones who want to treat housing as an investment. they should not get preferential treatment when this does not benefit them. they should live within their means.

---

One_Day_Remains posted...

Lmao, he blocked me. Less dumb shit on my screen now

When backed into a corner that's what these DDIQ MAGAs do

---

averagejoel posted...

landlords are the ones who want to treat housing as an investment. they should not get preferential treatment when this does not benefit them. they should live within their means.

The rules of the game were changed halfway to benefit one side excessively versus the other. That's not fair.

---

dirtydog posted...

The rules of the game were changed halfway to benefit one side excessively versus the other. That's not fair.

The rules favored one side heavily for nearly a century and they're mad that a balance patch was made

---

dirtydog posted...

The rules of the game were changed halfway to benefit one side excessively versus the other. That's not fair.

"the rules of the game" allow housing to be treated as an investment. in the vast majority of cases, this status quo benefits the people who own that housing. this is still the case even with a small balance patch

---

The only way this is balanced is if landlords were previously able to arbitrarily evict tenants but continue collecting rent

Its completely one sided

It is necessary because of pandemic
But lets not pretend this is making anything fair
---

averagejoel posted...

"the rules of the game" allow housing to be treated as an investment. in the vast majority of cases, this status quo benefits the people who own that housing. this is still the case even with a small balance patch

It also benefits people who want to rent a home
---

dirtydog posted...

So people here are advocating not paying rent but they call the LANDLORDS the leeches. Okay.

Even if people could argue that landlords were leeches, tenents living rent free for months on end are less then that. Parasites.

---

averagejoel posted...

"the rules of the game" allow housing to be treated as an investment. in the vast majority of cases, this status quo benefits the people who own that housing. this is still the case even with a small balance patch

It benefits both parties. Including the one who gets to live in a home they otherwise couldn't afford to buy, and if renting weren't an option, they'd be homeless.

---

Thaumaturge posted...

Absolutely brilliant.

and makes sense

g980 posted...

It also benefits people who want to rent a home

I'm talking about material economic benefit here. renters do not benefit materially from renting. landlords do benefit materially from owning the rental unit

---

Sounds like some tough shit. Landlords might have to get a real job

---

Rent is the very reason that many people can't build savings because they pour money down a hole for nothing for years. Rent is often significantly higher than the mortgage for a comparable space. It's people's biggest and most essential expense, and when you don't pay it, the landlord can just throw away all your stuff and put you out on the street, forcing you to pay additional startup costs specifically because you didn't have money.

Landlords buy up all the property that may have otherwise been available for purchase. When the renter can't afford to purchase, they literally pay just not to be homeless. It's literally the worst form of rent seeking behavior. It's unproductive and exploitative when we're talking about poor people, not people who choose to rent for convenience. It's a stick up operation. That's not a "service", it's a broken economic system.

---

dirtydog posted...

It benefits both parties. Including the one who gets to live in a home they otherwise couldn't afford to buy, and if renting weren't an option, they'd be homeless.

this is so catastrophically incorrect that it must be intentional.

first: it's extremely common for people to pay more for rent than they would for a mortgage payment.
second: the alternative to housing being treated as an investment (i.e. the thing that creates the landlord/tenant relationship in the first place) is not "every person who would have rented becomes homeless"; it's "all the housing that would have been rented becomes public housing." housing being treated as an investment (as opposed to, say, a basic human right) is what creates homelessness. removing that economic relationship does not create more homelessness

---

averagejoel posted...

I'm talking about material economic benefit here. renters do not benefit materially from renting. landlords do benefit materially from owning the rental unit

I dont economically benefit from buying groceries either but i still benefit overall
---

Let's say a poor village is experiencing a famine. There is actually a lot of food to buy, it's just that no one can afford it. Without the food, the people will starve. But there's a profession of people who have ownership over all the food. They already have enough food for themselves, but they buy up all the food the others couldn't have afforded anyway as an investment. They sell food of varying quality at inflated prices that the villagers can just barely afford. But there's no other way to get food within the village if you're poor.

Are the food sellers providing an essential service or are they taking advantage of poverty?

---

dirtydog posted...

It benefits both parties. Including the one who gets to live in a home they otherwise couldn't afford to buy, and if renting weren't an option, they'd be homeless.

Lol no. To paraphrase a tweet i once read:

The bank: you can't afford a 1000 dollar a month mortgage!

Me: ok. *continues paying 1400 a month in rent*

Thats the far more accurate reality.

---

I've heard of a tenant who doesn't pay rent yet has three boats, and there's nothing the landlord can do about it.

---

g980 posted...

I dont economically benefit from buying groceries either but i still benefit overall

cool. that's an entirely different conversation that I'm not interested in having

---

I'll say this at least.

My experience with landlords has generally been more negative than positive, and a lot of valid criticisms have already been posted.

That said, having the inability to evict problematic tenants, even during a pandemic is not a great scenario. I'm talking about tenants who are constantly making noise outside noise ordinance hours, causing damage or being filthy where it impacts other tenants etc.

I recently bought a house, but there are some rental townhomes across the street. One of the tenants would periodically put extra recycling material just on my lawn (shipping address made the culprit obvious), and this resulted in the city giving me a warning. I was able to clear this up since I had proof that it wasn't my garbage. There were also regular domestics I could hear to where cops got involved. I can only imagine what that was like for the other tenants sharing the wall.

We had an eviction freeze end January 1 and those problematic tenants across the street had to move out. My next door neighbor had mentioned to me they had been a problem for the neighborhood for months but due to the eviction freeze we had to deal with them longer.

I don't have a perfect solution when it comes to situations like this, but it's definitely an issue that impacts more than landlords.

---

TheChariot posted...

Landleeches don't get to rage that they aren't getting money because their tenants aren't getting money either.

i believe landleeches are the shitty tenants not paying for housing and living there lmao

---

Will_VIIII posted...

I'll say this at least.

My experience with landlords has generally been more negative than positive, and a lot of valid criticisms have already been posted.

That said, having the inability to evict problematic tenants, even during a pandemic is not a great scenario. I'm talking about tenants who are constantly making noise outside noise ordinance hours, causing damage or being filthy where it impacts other tenants etc.

I recently bought a house, but there are some rental townhomes across the street. One of the tenants would periodically put extra recycling material just on my lawn (shipping address made the culprit obvious) and there were regular domestics I could hear to where cops got involved. I can only imagine what that was like for the other tenants sharing the wall.

We had an eviction freeze end January 1 and those problematic tenants across the street had to move out. My next door neighbor had mentioned to me they had been a problem for the neighborhood for months but due to the eviction freeze we had to deal with them longer.

I don't have a perfect solution when it comes to situations like this, but it's definitely an issue that impacts more than landlords.

providing people with housing is more important than providing investors with return on their investment

---

Housing is important yes, but so is the safety and quality of life around those who live near problematic tenants

---

averagejoel posted...

providing people with housing is more important than providing investors with return on their investment

Not when you believe that the return on investment is more important than human life.

---

averagejoel posted...

cool. that's an entirely different conversation that I'm not interested in having

You really struggle with analogies huh
---

Also your response to my post isn't at all relevant

---

SuperShake666 posted...

Landlords belong against the wall tbh

How has this not been modded lmao

---

g980 posted...

You really struggle with analogies huh

no, I know what you're talking about. it's just a completely different conversation that I am not interested in having.

---

HairyQueen posted...

Why would the landlord need to keep maintaining the property? Also do landlords normally pay utilities? I thought that was always (or almost always) on the tenant.

It depends. Some locations, the tenant is responsible for paying utilities. Some locations, then landlord/housing company covers the utilities. Some locations, its a mix.

I currently rent a home where water, electricity, and gas are all covered. Doesnt matter how much we use, we never pay a bill out of our own pocket.

averagejoel posted...

I'm talking about material economic benefit here. renters do not benefit materially from renting. landlords do benefit materially from owning the rental unit

Renters do benefit from renting.

Landlords take on the transaction costs of home ownership. ~10% of home value is a transaction cost when it changes hands in a sale. A new tenant transaction costs are a tiny fraction of that, and most of those costs are recoverable upon move out so long as the property is not damaged.

And as mentioned before they take on the risk of ownership and all that entails. Renting caps liability to your rent. If you have a lease and the owner suddenly has 2x expenses, doesn't matter to you, your lease is a contract.


---

Will_VIIII posted...

I'll say this at least.

My experience with landlords has generally been more negative than positive, and a lot of valid criticisms have already been posted.

That said, having the inability to evict problematic tenants, even during a pandemic is not a great scenario. I'm talking about tenants who are constantly making noise outside noise ordinance hours, causing damage or being filthy where it impacts other tenants etc.

I recently bought a house, but there are some rental townhomes across the street. One of the tenants would periodically put extra recycling material just on my lawn (shipping address made the culprit obvious), and this resulted in the city giving me a warning. I was able to clear this up since I had proof that it wasn't my garbage. There were also regular domestics I could hear to where cops got involved. I can only imagine what that was like for the other tenants sharing the wall.

We had an eviction freeze end January 1 and those problematic tenants across the street had to move out. My next door neighbor had mentioned to me they had been a problem for the neighborhood for months but due to the eviction freeze we had to deal with them longer.

I don't have a perfect solution when it comes to situations like this, but it's definitely an issue that impacts more than landlords.

Are those separate state and local eviction freezes? I'm only familiar with the CDC moratorium that stops evictions if the tenant is unable to pay rent.

---

Shouldn't that be directed at the banks who should forgive the moratgage payments using the same logic of all investments being risky?

Topics like these always reinforce that most CEman are really sheltered and have the simplest and dumbest understanding of everything.

It's also crazy that several of the people who go on about "they make money for doing nothing" are literally in the stock and crypto generals making money for doing nothing.

Also nobody ever has any real solution because insane rent prices arr definitely a giant problem. Just la la land shit like public housing. Have any of you actually been to any government run public housing before?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Where? I'm guessing Westchester, Nassau or Morris NJ?

---

Musourenka posted...

Are those separate state and local eviction freezes? I'm only familiar with the CDC moratorium that stops evictions if the tenant is unable to pay rent.

I honestly don't recall. All I know is that on January 1 this year a U-Haul was parked in their driveway and they were gone a couple days after.

And I'm happy about that.

---

KILBOTz posted...

and most of those costs are recoverable upon move out so long as the property is not damaged.

Realistically thats not how it happens.

The vast majority of landlords will always find some way to keep the damage deposit and unless you wanna fight over it for who knows how long good luck ever getting it back no matter how pristine you kept the property.

---

KILBOTz posted...

Renters do benefit from renting.

Landlords take on the transaction costs of home ownership. ~10% of home value is a transaction cost when it changes hands in a sale. A new tenant transaction costs are a tiny fraction of that, and most of those costs are recoverable upon move out so long as the property is not damaged.

And as mentioned before they take on the risk of ownership and all that entails. Renting caps liability to your rent. If you have a lease and the owner suddenly has 2x expenses, doesn't matter to you, your lease is a contract.

none of this contradicts anything I said. try again

---

It'll be so great when the Landlords kick these people out for spending their money on other things instead of paying the rent.

---

renters benefit by having freedom and not being liable to the property. essentially their losses are limited to their security deposit. they can move whenever they want.

---

averagejoel posted...

this is so catastrophically incorrect that it must be intentional.

first: it's extremely common for people to pay more for rent than they would for a mortgage payment.
second: the alternative to housing being treated as an investment (i.e. the thing that creates the landlord/tenant relationship in the first place) is not "every person who would have rented becomes homeless"; it's "all the housing that would have been rented becomes public housing." housing being treated as an investment (as opposed to, say, a basic human right) is what creates homelessness. removing that economic relationship does not create more homelessness

So really your answer to the problem is theft.

And funny that China, for all its communism, still has a 2-3M homeless people to the US's 500k. USSR also had homelessness, they just didn't count them and said everyone has a right to a house so being homeless is illegal and then swept them under the rug.

---

averagejoel posted...

none of this contradicts anything I said. try again

Those are material economic benefits. Just because you don't understand finance doesn't mean the benefits aren't real.

---

CanuckCowboy posted...

The vast majority of landlords will always find some way to keep the damage deposit and unless you wanna fight over it for who knows how long good luck ever getting it back no matter how pristine you kept the property.

I expected this, especially because the property was bought out by a new management team while I lived there and they were objectively worse, but I actually got the entirety of my deposit back. I asked some friends what their experience was and they all generally got their deposits back in full too.

---

Dark_SilverX posted...

It'll be so great when the Landlords kick these people out for spending their money on other things instead of paying the rent.

Also this

KILBOTz posted...

Those are material economic benefits. Just because you don't understand finance doesn't mean the benefits aren't real.

I wouldnt even bother arguing finance with lefties, its like talking to a brick wall

---

Will_VIIII posted...

I expected this, especially because the property was bought out by a new management team while I lived there and they were objectively worse, but I actually got the entirety of my deposit back. I asked some friends what their experience was and they all generally got their deposits back in full too.

Its not all landlords who are like that... but id say it's a very significant number if not a majority.


---

Samurontai posted...

Also this

I wouldnt even bother arguing finance with lefties, its like talking to a brick wall

Killbotz: makes numerous valid points and has quality discussion.

You: hurr durr leftists!


---

CanuckCowboy posted...

Killbotz: makes numerous valid points and has quality discussion.

You: hurr durr leftists!

There is no such thing as a quality discussion with a leftists, so why would I bother

---

CanuckCowboy posted...

Killbotz: makes numerous valid points and has quality discussion.

You: hurr durr leftists!

He earned a MAGA tag with that remark

---