Private property abuses the rights of personal property. It’s my home, yet someone else “owns” it.
Landlords barely contribute maintenance when required. Might as well hire a handy person to be intermediary to any professionals 🤷
You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like Cassa doesn’t understand what capital means. The landlord is just whoever has, on paper, the capital used to provide housing to the people. If it’s no one, then congrats on living in an abandoned building or outside. If it’s the government or a public bank or credit union, then that’s probably a pretty decent landlord. If it’s a private company, that’s probably a source of evil. If it’s an individual or family that owns many houses, then it really depends but is often a source of harm to tenants. If you own your own home, then your net worth is way above the median, I wonder where you got all that wealth from?
is it okay if the government or bank is a landlord so I can afford to live on rent, no capital?
bank and governments are already landlords - usually to owned homes as well
I’m not sure I understand your question, but I presume you don’t got cash to buy a home - and therefore think you should need to rent.
Nobody should have to rent, hell homes shouldn’t be a money commodity traded for profit at all. Landlords are part of the equation that made you unable to just buy a home. The cost of housing has gone up exponentially, across most of the world. This isn’t due to less housing per population, inflation or just less housing being built. It’s that capitalism feeds on growth and will create artificial growth if needed.
but tldr, there is no ethical living under capitalism
I mean, capital still exists even without capitalism. Houses are made with materials and labor that cost more than rent and a security deposit. Even in the most socialist or communist ownership structure, someone paid for those materials and that labor, and that someone isn’t a new tenant unless they bought the entire house with an upfront payment.
I’m not sure what alternative you’re proposing.
I sure would love to be given the capital of a house for free, because then I could turn around and reverse mortgage its value and get significant personal gain from that.
Community builds housing. Society makes it.
First off, yes a house is capital - within the current capialist system it’s capital cost is completely disconnected from the actual capital cost.
Secondly, I’m open to alternatives? I’ve got an option but a problem doesn’t have to have a solution for me to point it out. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand capital.
Here’s an “alternative” people get their personal property. Secondly we give out empty homes. You can trade homes, hell even sell em but their value isn’t the same anymore after revolution and everyone owning one.
All the way down we have established communes. Communities that we partake in. Here we would build housing when new families need it. Community effort to make it in a fairly moneyless society.
Why do you have a landlord if you don’t need one?
Because they drive up the value of housing. To create a gap where they insert themselves 🤷 siphoning value out of of people. Because you don’t own a house. The bank does. Look at the 2008 financial crisis f.ex. your house is gambled with even if you “own” it
Landlords serve a purpose, I know lots of people that don’t want to own the home, they want others to do maintenance, pay property taxes and insurance. I’m a landlord, I put a 100k into the property before I rented it and it’s a beautiful home and have had multiple families enjoy it while living there. Current person couldn’t find a place that would allow dogs, I was happy to take her in considering last tenant allowed their kids to draw on the walls. I’ll take the dog.
Most landlords don’t own the houses either. It’s all the bank. If the landlord can get credit so can you. Unless you can’t, in which case you should be thankful that someone else can and will take the risk so you can pay month to month.
There is a reason why economists call the act of syphoning value from the economy without producing anything rent-seeking behaviour. Allowing private interests to profit from basic human needs is a very inefficient way to fulfil those needs on a population level, and in many cases promotes the forming of dynasties, and the concentration of wealth.
There are few sensible reasons for a society to allow ownership of living space far beyond what the owners can use themselves.
The whole problem is that they raise the prices of something all people deserve.
A home.
When landlords can get credit and buy two houses to rent out, they have raised the prices. They could outbid someone else because they had both rent and maybe a job to live off. Soon it’s a company that owns a building, and then they own a block. Every time they outbid someone who wanted to live there they raise prices.
And then there is rent pricing. See landlords could set rent low, but they might have taken credit that wouldn’t work for that, so that they could outbid. Instead they can price it for what they can get. In the marked, and raise prices accordingly.
The price gets inflated more when you have big companies that own a lot, they often own enough that they can let flats stay empty (which they do). This is to keep prices high. Just check their stock price, juicy isnt it?
See, this is because the banks and private investors have invested in property. And they expect a profitable return, and that return has to increase every quarter. Rent prices can’t go down, that would lover the stock price and could lead to a lack of investment which would not just tank the company but cascadingly the housing marked and so the banks. This would especially fuck mortages and people wjo own them as you’re trapped with debth and a valueless home.
But look at 2008, see who got bailed out.
Be thankful you’ve got the privelege to be ignorant 🤷
Blah blah blah, that’s too much to read. I’m sure your a wonderful victim of everyone else being responsible for your problems. Sleep well.
Classic Liberal reply ;)
