Current Events > Why are folks so against renting / landlords?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The alternative is buying and that's even worse, for someone that's starting out fresh / unsure they're going to live there a long time:
You'd have to already have 15%-30% of the house value you'd buy in cash (5%-20% down payment + 10% closing costs) and it'll take you 2-4 months to look and finally buy a house.

Then, you'd have to take care of the house and property all by yourself! Roof leaking? There goes $1k to repair or $8k to replace... Dishwasher broke? There goes $100 for a service call or $1k to replace.... Underground water line is leaking? Hope you have a protection plan, or there goes $10k+ to dig that shit up and repair/replace it.

And finally, when you want to move, you have to sell the fuckin' thing and spend another 10% on closing fees and 2-4 months again.

Rent is too damn high

Because the rent is too damn high.

Well, you see, the rent is too god damn high

Because in the end, tenants end up shouldering all those costs, anyway. Every last one of them is passed down, at a markup, no less. It's just distributed to make it more "palatable." The only difference is that you have nothing to show for it on the other end, and you're still paying maintenance fees even if nothing breaks.

"shouldering the risk," "property taxes," "maintenance," none of it hold up, because there's not a landlord alive who's renting at a loss. They're worthless middlemen artificially inflating prices to line their pockets.

The rent, shes a too damn high

You rent enough places, you inevitably meet some real scumbag landlords.

It's the good ones worth talking about. Unfortunately, no one does.

People want to own their own property. Most people dont want to rent because there is no stability and you could be thrown out if the owner decided to sell the house.

Why dont people save up and buy a house? Because the average cost of a house is over $400k and average rent cost is $2000, so you cant afford to save to buy.

Also, people are getting forced on top of one another because its too expensive to live alone. Things are past the point of me not understanding why something hadnt been done about this. We desperately need some higher government entity to fix this, but they wont even freaking acknowledge it.

Because they exploit the working class while not being productive themselves.

As a landlord, Im high on rent. I need more

people mistakenly think housing is a right rather than a commodity

they also don't realize that tons of renters are complete scumbags that will destroy your property without a second thought and that being a landlord is actually kind of a nightmare

HolierThanMao posted...

people mistakenly think housing is a right rather than a commodity

they also don't realize that tons of renters are complete scumbags that will destroy your property without a second thought and that being a landlord is actually kind of a nightmare

I see you bro

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Because in the end, tenants end up shouldering all those costs, anyway. Every last one of them is passed down, at a markup, no less. It's just distributed to make it more "palatable." The only difference is that you have nothing to show for it on the other end, and you're still paying maintenance fees even if nothing breaks.

"shouldering the risk," "property taxes," "maintenance," none of it hold up, because there's not a landlord alive who's renting at a loss. They're worthless middlemen artificially inflating prices to line their pockets.

AloneIBreak posted...

Because they exploit the working class while not being productive themselves.

......? Landlords provide a service at risk: by giving you a place to live in exchange for monthly payment without (i) a massive down payment to buy, (ii) no obligation to you to maintain the property, and (iii) leave whenever you want. Hell, you could trash the place and the landlord would be responsible for the bills to clean it up. Sure, you can get sued for this, but what's the likelihood that someone who will trash up a place can ever afford to repay the damages they made?

The alternative is for you to go buy, which requires everything in my 1st post and doesn't give you the flexibility to just leave.

As a landlord, the only ones who complain are ones who can't help themselves.

HolierThanMao posted...

people mistakenly think housing is a right rather than a commodity

they also don't realize that tons of renters are complete scumbags that will destroy your property without a second thought and that being a landlord is actually kind of a nightmare

With how much people seem to complain about it, makes you wonder why they don't stop.

Almost like all those sweet, easy stacks extorted from the desperate more than make up for the headache.

Like I said. There's not a landlord alive renting at a loss.

Does the name "landlords" not spark something in your head?

It makes sense that people have misgivings due to the potential and reality of abuse of the system, but acting like everything is uniformly shitty is just ignorant at best.

Personal experience with renting:
After I graduated college, when I was out on my own, I rented a 1 bedroom apartment. I broke the lease agreement in just 6 months and left for another town because I had another job offer elsewhere that was much higher in pay. I moved to renting a 3 bedroom house instead.

After 1.5 years, I broke the lease again and moved to another state for another job with much higher pay again, but this time, I considered this 3rd job my "life career" and I managed to save enough money, so bought a house.

The landlords of the apartment and house I rented were fine... Whenever something broke, their maintenance people or the landlord themselves came over and repaired it. I had no issues, and I paid them via auto pay. Idk why people are so anti-landlord and anti-renting.

IdiotMachine posted...

......? Landlords provide a service at risk: by giving you a place to live in exchange for monthly payment without (i) a massive down payment to buy, (ii) no obligation to you to maintain the property, and (iii) leave whenever you want. Hell, you could trash the place and the landlord would be responsible for the bills to clean it up. Sure, you can get sued for this, but what's the likelihood that someone who will trash up a place can ever afford to repay the damages they made?

The alternative is for you to go buy, which requires everything in my 1st post and doesn't give you the flexibility to just leave.

No, they don't. They act as a middleman while passing all of the costs down to you. That down payment is paid for with your rent. The damages are paid for with your rent. Even if those damages never happen, you are paying for them on the off chance they might in the future, or did in the past. Plus an extra markup, because the landlord's goal is not to break even.

Landlords are not renting at a loss, or even to break even. Period. Any "risk" they assume is intrinsically offset by the nature of the business. They are MAKING money, 100% of the time. You, the tenant, are still paying for every single one of those "risks." The best you can say is that it's a deferred payment plan structure.

A structure that would not be needed if you just owned the place, as all those markups and extra expenses would be in your pocket instead of the landlord's. You could afford the down payment if you weren't spending months to years paying for theirs.

That's the point. They are middlemen who offer nothing but lack of ownership and higher prices.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

No, they don't. They act as a middleman while passing all of the costs down to you. That down payment is paid for with your rent. The damages are paid for with your rent. Even if those damages never happen, you are paying for them on the off chance they might in the future, or did in the past. Plus an extra markup, because the landlord's goal is not to break even.

Landlords are not renting at a loss, or even to break even. Period. Any "risk" they assume is intrinsically offset by the nature of the business. They are MAKING money, 100% of the time. You, the tenant, are still paying for every single one of those "risks." The best you can say is that it's a deferred payment plan structure.

A structure that would not be needed if you just owned the place, as all those markups and extra expenses would be in your pocket instead of the landlord's. You could afford the down payment if you weren't spending months to years paying for theirs.

That's the point. They are middlemen who offer nothing but lack of ownership and higher prices.

Middlemen of what exactly? I can't comprehend your logic here.

Because netizens have arbitrarily decided to reduce landlords into mustache twirling strawmen.

If wages were higher there would be less reason to care. If rent were lower there would be less reason to care. If the government provided a decent public option there would be less reason to care. If ownership wasn't as ridiculous a prospect for so many there would be less reason to care. Personally it's just a combination of everything being the perfect storm of "why does everything about housing suck?"

Even homeowners and renters themselves complain about shit ffs, this system is clearly not working for anyone since everyone seems to have an endless list of complaints no matter what part of the housing sector they are dealing with.

IdiotMachine posted...

Middlemen of what exactly? I can't comprehend your logic here.

Ok, so follow me, here.

If the renter is spending months to years paying the landlord's down payment, and the renter is paying the landlord's property taxes year-on-year, and the renter is paying for all maintenance fees regardless of whether or not they were used or needed, and the renter is paying all costs of their move out, as well as the outstanding costs incurred by other renters...

what, exactly, was the landlord actually good for? Other than being rich enough to double the purchase offer, turn around, and flip the place? And throwing extra fees in, ticketmaster-style?

DarkBuster22904 posted...

Ok, so follow me, here.

If the renter is spending months to years paying the landlord's down payment, and the renter is paying the landlord's property taxes year-on-year, and the renter is paying for all maintenance fees regardless of whether or not they were used or needed, and the renter is paying all costs of their move out, as well as the outstanding costs incurred by other renters...

what, exactly, was the landlord actually good for? Other than being rich enough to double the purchase offer, turn around, and flip the place? And throwing extra fees in, ticketmaster-style?

The landlord's down payment came long before the renter started renting, and the tenant has freedom to leave and isn't tied down anywhere. I'm still not understanding why you're calling the landlord a middleman... They own the property that you're renting from; there is no middleman.

I prefer renting just because I hate having to fix shit myself like central air units and washers and dryers and what not.

IdiotMachine posted...

The landlord's down payment came long before the renter started renting, and the tenant has freedom to leave and isn't tied down anywhere. I'm still not understanding why you're calling the landlord a middleman... They own the property that you're renting from; there is no middleman.

they are the middleman between the house and the person who lives in it

MedeaLysistrata posted...

this system is clearly not working for anyone since everyone seems to have an endless list of complaints no matter what part of the housing sector they are dealing with.

except for the oligarchs of course.

After owning a home for almost a year and a half, I much prefer owning a home to renting.

When i was younger i thought rent was temporary. Generally, people rent to save for a house of their own. As long as youre saving up for a house and its expenses, renting was a way for that. So, high rent + temporary residence kinda made sense to me.

However, people i know were on their 20th year renting and it had me thinking about how it was supposed to go and how it is...