As a lifelong Ohioan, fuck this bullshit attitude. Plenty of us hate what’s going on here and are actively trying to fix it. Try extending a helping hand, or bare minimum, a word of support, rather than ostracizing 20 10 million people on the grounds of fucking geography.
Edit: numbers are hard
But why is that a problem?
Because whatever a renter pays in rent disproportionately enriches the landlord. Sure they get temporary shelter, but the landlord owns the shelter, plus they get extra money on top of that. The renter ends the relationship in the red, the landlord ends in the black. That’s definitionally parasitic.
Not everything is about physical possessions.
It sort of is though. In the case of renting, the renter pays money but ends up with zero physical possessions, but the landlord ends up with more money and physical possessions (in the form of increased equity in a property). That can never be an equal exchange. That’s the difference between renting and buying a meal (or the difference between renting and ownership in general) - when you buy something, the buyer loses money but gains a physical possession, and the seller gains money but loses a physical possession. That can be an equal exchange.
Do we at least agree that if the landlords sets the rent at $1/month, then the transaction will be to the benefit of the tenant?
No. A tenant never gains anything once the terms of the lease expire. The property owner is the only one that gains, as long as the price of rent is a positive number.
But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.
Right, because the system is broken.
That’s a rather arbitrary rule.
It’s basically co-ownership, which is already an established way to buy and own a property.
Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?
At the end of your lease, if you choose not to renew, you still have equity in a property which is worth something, rather than ending up with nothing in the current system.
Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right?
The relationship between a landlord (parasite) and a renter (host) is absolutely a net negative for the renter*, because at the termination of the relationship, the landlord ends up with much more than they started with (equity in a property + profit from rent) and the renter ends up with less than they started with (lost money in rent payments).
Huh. Well that explains why those are my two favorite positions
This is how to get your passengers to vomit all over the inside of your car
You know, as unappetizing as this looks, it probably tastes close to dipping a grilled cheese into tomato soup. I’m keeping my mind open, but good lord they need help with their plating.
Well of course it’s not gonna be true when you make up an incredibly unlikely contrived scenario that doesn’t follow anything close to a normal distribution
The whole system needs overhauling to make it work these changes alone won’t sort it out.
Correct, wholeheartedly agree.
If their rent went toward equity in the home they were renting, when the landlord sells, an equitable portion of the cash made during the sale would go to the renters. Ideally, the renters could then use that nest egg of cash to put a down payment on a home.
If a person is paying money for access to and upkeep of a particular home, I think it’s very fair for them to build equity in that home proportional to what they pay in rent. If landlords find that too risky or not lucrative enough, well, they don’t have to be landlords.
They literally do not provide housing. If they did, there wouldn’t be a housing shortage.
It’s a very big basket. Plenty of room for nuance in there.
People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.
On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?
If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.
You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth lol. Obviously a megacorp that owns thousands of single-family homes is much much worse than you renting out your vacation home. Both things are unethical in my opinion, as long as things are in a state where people are without homes, but the megacorp is orders more unethical than someone renting out a single vacation home.
Builders provide housing. Landlords are nothing more than a middle man.
I think your spending assessments are exaggerated for effect, but ultimately sort of the embodiment of “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”, a leftist slogan that, while maybe oversimplified, I mostly agree with.
I’m not fetishizing anything though. I’m just saying it’s unethical to profit off of your ability to deny access to a basic human need.
Taking away the opportunity of home ownership is not a service.
I’ll let you know after the next leftist meeting lmao.
Real talk though, save it, donate it, or spend it. Burn it for all I care. Just don’t buy real estate you don’t plan on living in.
Good old fashioned police work: either waiting for someone else to do the work, or setting up some poor sad sack to pin the crime on.
Here’s some evidence for you: a 10 year old rape victim in Ohio was forced to travel to Indiana for an abortion, since Ohio had a blanket ban on all abortion at the time. The doctor that performed the abortion in Indiana was investigated and fined, and still faces harassment to this day. For performing an abortion for a 10 year old rape victim.