SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd3k1qn wrote
Reply to comment by shawnwasim in Kansas City prevented hundreds of evictions by providing attorneys. Now the program is growing by cragar79
They have an asset with worth in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
They can sell and get real jobs, rather then put down a fraction of a property's cost and have someone pay it off for them on an asset that typically appreciates greatly over time.
shawnwasim t1_jd3mspw wrote
Why would you put the responsibility on the landlord to sell their home rather than the system that sets it up this way? How do you know landlords dont work also? You do realize that rental properties barely make an income stream until they're fully paid off right? You most likely don't have any experience with landlords or properties and are going off the typical reddit landlords are bad circlejerk
SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd3pgvn wrote
>Why would you put the responsibility on the landlord to sell their home rather than the system that sets it up this way? How do you know landlords dont work also? You do realize that rental properties barely make an income stream until they're fully paid off right? You most likely don't have any experience with landlords or properties and are going off the typical reddit landlords are bad circlejerk
You mean the responsibility to sell someone else's home, right? They don't rent to themselves.
You'd also be incorrect. I have rented. I currently own. I've seen the vast difference in opportunity in each. The fact that you can park money on a property (that you don't need), and it makes a little bit of money for 25 years, and then heaps of money afterwards, and can be sold at any time for a huge cash infusion, is monumentally better position than a tenant, who gets to pay all of the operating costs and has 0 to show for it in the end.
Consider this. You as a landlord buy a property for x. Your are a good landlord, and your tenant pays rent exactly equal to the upkeep of your property, 0 profit monthly for you as landlord, for 5 years. You then decide you want a better property, and sell, for probably 1.3x. You make lots of money. Tenant has 0 and continues to rent.
If that tenant had been allowed to buy that exact same property, and paid the same monthly rate to cover the same costs of ownership directly, after 5 years they'd have ~0.15x in equity. Which beats the snot out of 0.
shawnwasim t1_jd3urmo wrote
Thats fine and all, except for the assumption that its the tenants house. What about the severe risk you are taking on for the lender? You are not taking that into account at all. The same risk that is now biting them in the ass.
SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd3yle9 wrote
>Thats fine and all, except for the assumption that its the tenants house. What about the severe risk you are taking on for the lender? You are not taking that into account at all. The same risk that is now biting them in the ass.
Have you looked at the rate of default on mortgages? It's so laughably small as to be non-existant. We could increase the default rate 10 fold and it would be comically low.
I think the banks will be fine. Their profits might take a negligible hit, but I do not see what giant risk you are worried about.
Now, if you're speaking about the risks being created by massively spiking interest rates, creating risk of mass default, that's a separate issue. TLDR: There are better ways to fight inflation than spiking interest rates.
shawnwasim t1_jd417ol wrote
I'm not talking about the banks, I'm talking about individual landlords who take the risk. You're talking as if landlords are just handed properties out of thin air, they earned their assets.
SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd47mxz wrote
>I'm not talking about the banks, I'm talking about individual landlords who take the risk.
You said lender. The landlord is the owner. Man you're on a roll today.
Also, Investment? Risk? My goodness what a combination! No investment has ever had risk before. /s
>You're talking as if landlords are just handed properties out of thin air, they earned their assets.
Incorrect. They earned the DOWN-PAYMENT of that asset.
Then the landlord claimed "FIRST" on the property in question, and arrange to have their tenant pay the remaining balance of the property. Often gaining passive income monthly as a result.
The flaws in such a system are obvious. Assuming the landlord makes 0 profit on either the sale or monthly costs, they are able to purchase assets on a 5 to 1 advantage compared to non-landlords, assuming a down-payment of 20%. 20% five times adds to 100%, you see.
Mix in HELOCs and the fact that land does in fact appreciate over time... It's supremely rigged in favor of those who have existing capital. The landlording of single family homes is right behind oil barrens and war-profiteers in making the world a worse place to their own enrichment.
Even done on a high density scale (low and high rise apartments), it should be much more heavily regulated, and ideally run at a net zero by municipal governments or nonprofit NGOs.
shawnwasim t1_jd4abz7 wrote
Lol alright man whatever you say. You obviously don't see the risk even though its screwing individuals over. Keep complaining about the system while nothing will happen because your frustration is directed at the wrong thing. And yeah lets have local governments and NGOs own land, I'm sure you've thoroughly researched market economies to know that would surely work.
SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd4bfn0 wrote
>Lol alright man whatever you say. You obviously don't see the risk even though its screwing individuals over. Keep complaining about the system while nothing will happen because your frustration is directed at the wrong thing. And yeah lets have local governments and NGOs own land, I'm sure you've thoroughly researched market economies to know that would surely work.
I'm saying we should change the system that clearly isn't meeting the needs of society. As in, something new. You need to try to get data.
You seem to advocating for a "got mine, fuck you" approach, afraid to try a different system because it might have some possible negative impact for you, in spite of the fact it could tremendously help others. Which, you're free to do. And I'm free to point out that's selfish as fuck.
Glad to see you've run out of any logical rebuttal though. Because there really isn't one that doesn't make one sound selfish.
shawnwasim t1_jd4f16f wrote
I have 0 rental properties. You dont have to be a landlord to see individuals getting screwed after the covid rental blocks.
SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd4g1ab wrote
Wait wait wait.
I'm just going to suspend my disbelief and answer this assuming 100% honesty on your part.
You're advocating to maintain the system in a way that will impact YOU negatively, correct? You want to maintain the inequality of the current system because... You look at those who have all the economic advantages, and sympathize with their minor setbacks? As opposed to the massive crisis of people who NO LONGER HAVE HOMES as the practice of landlording forces more and more people onto the street?
MAN, your head must be a WILD place to be.
shawnwasim t1_jd4k88t wrote
Please tell me, elaborate even, on how an individual who owns an extra property is not being harmed by their tenant not paying them since april 2020?
SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd4l79j wrote
I've stated this repeatedly. Nobody is forcing them to continue owning the property.
They may sell at any moment, and eliminate the problem.
They chose to buy into an exploitative business model and are being burned, just a little. If you go bankrupt from your tenant not paying rent, you couldn't afford that property, could you? Walk away, make better choices.
shawnwasim t1_jd4piu1 wrote
LOOOL okay now I just feel like you're messing around
SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd4gbfq wrote
Addendum: those individuals could sell if they're not having fun. One more property on the property market to be owner by the occupant.
lil_hyphy t1_jd6oqth wrote
The individuals that are getting screwed over, as he explained, are tenants. The system of landlording is designed to screw over tenants and enrich landlords. That’s why it’s hard to cry for you. Your system of exploitation stopped working so good, big whoop. You’ve still got way more assets and capital than any of the people you’re taking advantage of because the checks notes need a place to live.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments