Comments
Bitmush- t1_ivcmm95 wrote
Because they're special flowers who won't or can't accept that there is risk involved in renting property to people. People who are entirely subject to the winds and whims of markets and recessions and downturns and crappy bosses and next to no security of employment or any assurances or mechanisms of keeping your head above water from one week to the next.
The landlords and hedge funders know how bleak and stacked against people it is out there, and they want to buffer themselves from it by gouging those people from the other side. Digging another tranche in the race to the bottom. More money for less security, from a shrinking pool of value and security. Grab, grab, grab, hand over fist, they'll take everything in sight, triple deposits, then sue to not repair damage that was there before you moved in. Rent up, and up, and up, service and quality, down, guarantees of safety and habitability, out the window, your dad's car towed away while he helps you move in. The whole thing is a shameful, rapacious scam, overseen by soulless deadeyed swines munching on the still-living corpses of the next round of people who've done nothing other than need a place to sleep or run from if there's a storm. Rot in hell, the whole lot of you, you'll have nothing soon enough and I'll laugh to see you picking around in the dumpster of the places you used to 'work at'.
jttIII t1_ivd09c9 wrote
Do you think landlords should just do it for a wash or a loss every month then?
Anima_EB t1_ivdyh8f wrote
I think they should invest in more moral prospects.
Fresca_667 t1_ivdz5uq wrote
What does that mean?
Wyldfire2112 t1_ive4ny2 wrote
It means they should do it for a wash or a loss every month.
Anima_EB t1_ivfdaj3 wrote
Nah I think they should just not do it period.
Fresca_667 t1_ivifatk wrote
So there shouldn’t be rental properties? Own your home or be homeless?
Anima_EB t1_ivii792 wrote
Yeah. Or at least 80%-90% less. Should have much more regulations. Maybe if that happened we have less slum lords plaguing springfield.
jttIII t1_ivf32kv wrote
Are you saying Profit itself is immoral or are you saying that the amount of profit pulled in on average from the average landlord/tenant relationship is immoral?
Kabosh668 t1_ivf9szm wrote
profiting off basic human needs always seemed immoral to me
Anima_EB t1_ivfd56p wrote
As Kabosh said. I don't believe things such as farming to be amoral or anything. Farming is very hard work and very very rarely are they taking advantage of people's needs. Landlording however is easier than ever with the constant usage of property managers etc. Buying tons of land from out of state or country just to profit off the local of wherever your property resides. Driving prices upwards to the point of being unachievable for many.
jttIII t1_ivftk0b wrote
and this is a good faith question, Why should I NOT take a profit if I am taking on all the risk of buying a property and filling it with someone who doesn't have the risk associated with owning a housing asset?
I mean a fair amount of people rent as a stepping stone to ownership but many rent precisely because they don't want to assume the risks and responsibilities associated with home ownership.
Anima_EB t1_ivgcqgk wrote
I understand. From a practical stand point that's the only reason to invest, with any investment comes an amount of risk. It's not that I want people to pay the way for others, I work 60 hours a week and have two skill sets. I also own my own home, but when your profit is levied against the lives of your neighbors it's not super cool. If neighbor Joe is having extreme hardship you have to choose between your investment or helping your fellow man.
Some people choose to help Joe. But overall the perspective is "nothing personal it's just business." To Joe it's his life and very personal. I also accept some people choose to rent. I purposefully included "90% of landlords." It's inevitable some of them provide a service to that small subsection of people who want to rent or choose to help Joe. But as you stated the vast majority of people want to own.
Foreign and local investors swooping in and buying properties for 70k over asking price skews the market constantly. Many millennial and those of younger generation are going to have a steeper incline to climb to get to the same spot as somebody who was in a position to invest in bloodsucking at an earlier time.
jttIII t1_ivgf70m wrote
First and foremost, I'll lay my ignorance on the table as I'm nothing more than an armchair economist... more educated than most on the subject but nowhere near an expert.
You'll also get little argument from me that large foreign ownership of US properties presents a whole host of challenges from a market security and even national security lens... IE if I was China and wanted to play the long game and had the capital I'd absolutely inflate the assets that are housing then attack currency to create a recession where people lose jobs and cant pay for the inflated asset then cascading to a depression. tin foil hat...
I genuinely do feel for people who are stuck renting. I bought in 2014 and my mortgage today on a 3 br 2 ba house couldn't pay for an unfurnished studio in most cases.
So what's your suggestion?
Anima_EB t1_ivhz11i wrote
I wouldn't be surprised China would be doing things like this. Especially given the financial situation between the U.S and China at the moment. They've also admitted to taking their salami slicing warfare tactic to the extreme in this way. Confucius Academys in college were under attack (still are and rightfully so) for spreading Chinese propaganda under the guise of raising awareness of their culture.
Anyway sorry for ranting. I'm not actually seeing a question in your response. What would my suggestion be to invest in outside of real estate?
jttIII t1_ivi2hlc wrote
What would your suggestion be in regards to the tension currently between pragmatic landlords who had the capital and risk tolerance to buy real estate and rent their properties for what the market will bear and their prospective tenants that you believe are being overpriced?
tmcgee417 t1_ivcmuuq wrote
Who pissed in your Cheerios?
dannyjbixby t1_ivdcapc wrote
Lord…you ok there bud?
jttIII t1_ivd0jh0 wrote
lol... of flipping course you follow reddit "antiwork"
good luck when your economic catastrophic wet dream occurs and you still have no valuable skills to any meaningful community.
You're poison.
Bitmush- t1_ivd81nc wrote
You sound exactly like everyone else you hope you look like, Chad.
jttIII t1_ivd8s8k wrote
K.
PinchePoderes t1_ivdfbfd wrote
Pretty much 90% of reddit is socialists. Idk why I’m on it anymore.
jttIII t1_ivdk8wn wrote
They're all pizza cutters man... all edge and no point.
GuestExisting4639 t1_ivbmmbv wrote
A lot of your government programs base your rent of 30% of your income. It’s pretty normal that 30% of your income should go towards your mortgage or your rent.
VaderTower t1_ivd1s4g wrote
OR LESS, preferably less. In my opinion 30% of your income going to housing is so much higher than I'd ever go.
Aimless78 t1_ivd8q28 wrote
That 30% isn't just rent but should include the rent, utilities, and trash. Basically depending on utility usage your rent should be between 20-25% of your income with the other expenses taking up the rest.
GuestExisting4639 t1_ivdvfam wrote
Not in many government agency cases. 30% is for rent or mortgage and utilities are separate. I work in these agencies I know.
Aimless78 t1_ivnun1h wrote
Yes but the problem is that is government helping people ans they want to keep those people needing them so they over extend them. The worst thing you can hear a person say is , 'I'm with the government and I'm here to help!'
GuestExisting4639 t1_ivo22vt wrote
To be perfectly honest that ratio has always been taught whether you’re on government assistance or not. My parents always taught me that my rent or my mortgage should never be more than 30% of my income. I’ve never been on government assistance I work hard and I don’t think that encourages me to overspend in fact I think it encourages me to be a good steward of my money.
justforrazors t1_ivelwgp wrote
After seeing the hate in this thread for landlords I was tempted not to post, but here we go.
Local private/small time landlord. 3 doors in the Springfield area. 3x rent in gross income is an industry standard. Just like most financial planners recommend that your mortgage shouldn’t be more than 30% of your gross income, by setting that requirement the landlord is assuring that the applicant can actually afford to live there. People have other expenses ranging from car payments, student loans, to food, gas, etc. the 3x isn’t to be mean, it’s to find qualified applicants that are going to pay their rent. There is most certainly risk associated with renting to people, and using filter requirements lowers the risk. I have an obligation to review applications, and legally I can’t just pick who I like the most, I have to choose the most qualified applicant. The person with 6x gross income to rent ratio and a 750 credit score is going to get accepted over the 3x/650 even if the latter technically meets the requirements too, because otherwise I’d be risking a discrimination lawsuit.
For the folks that seem to think this is unreasonable, imagine putting $50,000 into an investment to make $300 a month after you’ve paid the taxes, insurance, maintenance, put blood sweat and tears into making sure everything is perfect, and then being told in order to get $300 you are going to need to spend an additional $10,000 and wait a year, operating at a loss because you have to evict a non-paying tenant. So yeah, I’m aware that there is risk, and using effective screening does reduce it to make sure that my family doesn’t have to default on our mortgage to keep a roof over someone else’s head.
Also in response to bitmush, sorry you’ve had a bad experience with renting from the sound of it. Our goal in renting/property management is to provide houses we would be comfortable living in ourselves with timely management, good maintenance, and fairness; just in general treating humans like humans. We try and fix issues within a week; we charge a 1 month security deposit (3x is illegal in Missouri by the way, max you can charge is 2x), and we do a move-in checklist with any prior damage noted that we keep on file, signed by the tenants and us, to protect tenants from us overcharging for repairs upon move out.
Happy to answer any constructive and relevant questions. I’m just a human with a full time w2 job that wants to provide a service to people in the community, and rentals are a great way for me to help secure my retirement in the future while helping out too.
Kitchen-Aerie2391 t1_iveyckb wrote
That was actually pretty clear and concise. Great beak down.
xSlutKitten69 t1_ivlcdiv wrote
It's an investment not an income. Why don't landlords stop being shitty
Meow_meow417 t1_ivbvsql wrote
It’s annoying asf especially for complexes for students. No one that I know that is in college that is self supporting makes x3 the monthly rent. The complex that I’m currently at requires a security deposit of 1100 dollars ! If you don’t make x3 the amount of rent.
818kapokid t1_ivd311v wrote
Most decent places are minimum 2500$ a month if your making anything less than 30$ a hr I don’t see how the hell ppl are surviving especially families!
Fresca_667 t1_ivdzgd0 wrote
Wtf?? You sure you live in Springfield, MO? I’ve never seen rent that high. There’s a house in my neighborhood sitting vacant that they’re trying to get $2000/mo for and no one is biting.
818kapokid t1_ivdzkf9 wrote
I dunno how I ended up here? Correct I do not live in MO, I’m located in Denver. Either way the rents high as fuk here too!
Fresca_667 t1_ivdzqy7 wrote
Oh it’s a lot higher there I’m sure! Lol
dannyjbixby t1_ivbzjfj wrote
That’s the general rule of thumb for anywhere, not just here.
indgosky t1_iven0aj wrote
Yes, and has been for generations in the US, though I expect GenX was the last one to learn this fact of life.
Anima_EB t1_ivdxi7i wrote
Landlords are parasites 90% of the time.
[deleted] t1_ivdvpky wrote
[deleted]
thetrevorkian t1_ivdaupu wrote
I can’t buy a house because I don’t make enough, but I have to make 3x the $1200 a month rent even tho my mortgage would be at least half that. Make it make sense. I understand wanting to make sure people will make enough to pay you, I understand wanting to make a profit and have a cushion just in case something happens. What I do not understand is charging what would have been $750/$800 before the pandemic is now $1200 and up. I have seen a 3 bedroom on the north side for $1800 and I’m pretty sure it didn’t even have central air.
It’s fucking stupid. I’m not against making profits, what I’m against is price gouging because you can because you know people don’t have another choice.
justforrazors t1_ivemzhv wrote
So a lot of people who haven’t owned have the same thought process, kind of disregarding the actual cost to maintain and upkeep a property. Here’s a breakdown on an actual rented property I own; what I pay monthly.
3 bed 2 full bath 2 car garage 1200 square feet $1500 monthly rent, republic mo
Mortgage: 965
Property taxes: 108
Insurance: 65
Money in reserve for repairs, maintenance, upkeep: 150
Total monthly cost: $1288
Total monthly profit $218
There are a lot of big companies who are absolutely raising rents to make more money. But inflation and supply chain means you have to pay more for maintenance; reappraisals mean taxes and insurance costs increase, etc. it isn’t entirely gouging, it’s more just a function of the world we live in right now unfortunately, and it probably isn’t as much price gouging as it is trying to not lose money.
Goge97 t1_ivforsm wrote
My parents owned rental property for years. My mom had to go in and clear out trash, scrub toilets, mop floors, etc. after people moved out. My stepdad was on call around the clock for clogged toilets, busted pipes, HVAC that needed repairing and so forth. Plus advertising and finding qualified tenants.
It was a lot of work! Plus tenants were late with payments or moved out owing money.
My parents had built up good credit to afford the mortgages on the properties they rented as well as all the skills needed to maintain them. And both of them put in a lot of work to maintain their hands-on business!
Television_Wise t1_iverwpb wrote
Your math is wrong. Because once your mortgage is paid, you can sell the house and get all the money you put into mortgage back, or probably even more. Same with repairs and improvements.
So saying "UwU I only make $200 a month off this place" is BS. You're getting a free house to dispose of later AND $200 a month.
So after all those years of "just $200 a month 😢" you're going to get $200,000 or $300,000 as well at the end (or whatever a house of that size/quality is going for in Republic).
Don't sit here and play pauper with your monthly profit BS. Add that $300,000 you'll get when you sell it to that monthly profit, what's it looking like now?
Landlords try the most BS sobstories and expect tenants to be stupid enough to believe them. But I guess it's natural for a parasite to try to keep their victim/host from getting rid of them.
justforrazors t1_ivesn35 wrote
Yeah, in a perfect world you’re absolutely correct. But just like you’re making a bunch of assumptions, what if we missed a terrible foundation issue? Or eminent domain? Or a tenant cooks meth in the property?
Mortgage paydown is the long term reasoning for owning real estate. But just like any investment, past performance doesn’t equal future returns.
I make $200 a month on a property, period. Until my crystal ball starts working properly again, that’s all I can go off of. I’d be happy to explain the tax costs of selling an investment property and show you the actual breakdown, but you’re assuming a perfect world where I don’t have to pay for a brand new hvac system, replace the roof out of pocket because insurance is a scam, or any of the thousands of other things that can go wrong in an instant.
Television_Wise t1_iveyi1w wrote
>you’re assuming a perfect world where I don’t have to pay for a brand new hvac system, replace the roof out of pocket
No, I'm absolutely not. Those are normal things to pay for over the course of owning and maintaining home. Everyone has a major repair expense at some point, bar extremely good luck. However, your property, if maintained, is likely to appreciate, which makes up for those costs. If you bought at 300k, sell at 350k, and spent a few thousand on an HVAC system? Then yeah, you're still coming out ahead. Especially since you didn't put the 300k in for the house--your tenants did, plus giving you $200 a month extra to spend.
"There's risks" yeah, that's how life works.
"Damaged foundation" something you reduce the likelihood of drastically by hiring a good inspector. You choose an inspector with a warranty in case they missed something. You know this, if you've actually bought a house before. You're pretending like it's a likely risk because you think renters are stupid and won't know about this and will think you have a real risk there.
"Eminent domain" <---- you still get paid for your property if eminent domain happens. It's also extremely unlikely to occur.
"Meth cook tenants" probably the only valid risk you've listed. Bad renters can wreak hell on a property.
justforrazors t1_ivf0h6f wrote
You clearly just disagree with landlording/property management on a fundamental level and I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so I'm not going to try to. I posted here to try and offer some insight to a question is all.
I'm a healthcare worker that has worked covid all over the United States for the last two years, seen some of the worst things imaginable, watched hundreds of people die senseless deaths, and saved money to buy properties so I don't have to microdose trauma for the rest of my life, but I guess getting called a parasite on a bright and sunny morning is all worth the struggle, right?
The tenants I have in my homes are like family; I care about them and want them to be comfortable. A tenant had a bad situation where a family member was having health issues, I installed grab bars and hand rails, discounted their rent for 3 months (1/2 normal, operating at a loss) and helped them get set up with covid relief, OCAC, and healthcare resources for their family member. We maintain our properties just like we would maintain our personal residence, address issues quickly, have 24/7 coverage for emergency maintenence, and try and treat the people in our properties like humans.
Ultimately, you are right. I wouldn't buy real estate if it wasn't about making money. The property should appreciate. I should make more than $200 if I take care of it. It should help generate generational wealth for my children, and their children. But it could also collapse into a sinkhole tomorrow and I'd be fucked. With that said, I take pride in the properties we own and we try and offer service that reflects the care and pride we have in our properties. I don't appreciate being called a parasite for trying to offer an affordable and fair service. We are all humans, and ultimately I hope that you don't lump everyone in real estate investing together. I could much more easily have invested money into index funds and renters would just have more corporate landlords to deal with.
Hope you have a good day,
Sincerely,
A healthcare hero/parasite
thetrevorkian t1_ivf586p wrote
Well just going by what you say you are one of the few landlord who are not pieces of shit. My landlords are nice as well but are still charging me more than the house is worth and there is a special needs guy that basically lives in the shed(it’s an add on to the house but based on what my house looks like his might as well be the shed..) so who knows how much they charge him as well.
Parasitic landlords like 417 rentals(not who I use just an example) used to be far and few between now they are par for the course.
Again as I said I’m all for making a profit but this is ridiculous.
justforrazors t1_ivf7f7w wrote
Yep, I totally understand the sentiment and I'm used to it at this point; it just still hurts when you try to do something positive and are immediately lumped in with assholes. When I explain my business model to people I use Chris Gatley/417 rentals as the antithesis to my goals.
​
I rented for 8 plus years prior to being able to afford a home and it wasn't always great. I remember renting a SFR that leaked from the roof every time it rained, and every time we complained the "maintenence guy" would come out with a bucket of tar and "patch" it. Never helped. We lived for three years with an in-ground pool that had a ripped liner and it became a literal cess-pool/mosquito breeding ground; we had to call the city to declare it a hazard before the owners agreed to have it filled in. I'd like to think I learned something from my experience renting, and we just try to be fair folks that don't take advantage of other humans. There are others out there; its just unfortunate that so many people with ill intent and no morals take advantage of folks for their own gain. We aren't trying to get rich, just be comfortably middle class in the midwest.
thatHungarian t1_ivf1xft wrote
How many rental properties do you own? Seems like you hating on a person who made a decision to buy a house and be a land lord. You know with risk comes reward at the end if you lucky enough..
I'm sure you heard the term long term investment. Same principle as the stock market works...are you hating on everyone who has a 401K because by time they retire they hopefully have at least a million in their account?
Matter of fact anybody you give your money for a service or product, you are actively helping their financial goals. So are you hating on everyone who is a business owner? Or only on land lords?
thetrevorkian t1_ivf68vp wrote
On anyone who over charges for services or goods. I live in the shittiest pet of town, my neighbors house got Molotov cocktailed two months ago and they are charging almost double what this house was going for 2 years ago. Plus whatever they are charging the mentally handicapped person who lives behind me. It’s dumb.
The house isn’t worth the money, they know it and we know it but there’s nothing we can do because it was the cheapest in the size we need.
I don’t mind paying money if what I am paying for is worth it.
Spiritual_Dentist_54 t1_ivdn7x8 wrote
I don’t think 3x income is unreasonable, but it definitely shows how we need more low cost options in town.
Television_Wise t1_iveta4j wrote
Frankly I'm not fond of the 3x requirement. It doesn't make much sense for more expensive apartments especially.
I spend a couple hundred a month on utilities, a couple hundred on food/household products. That amount is not going to change much whether I live in $500 apartment or a $1500 one.
3x $500 is $1500. That works. 3x $1500 tho is $4500. So on a $1500 apartment, I would have $3000 a month left after rent. Why in the name of God do I need to have a spare $3000? Grocery and utility expenses are still the same. Even if I had a car loan on top of it, i wouldn't need 3k to take care of that, unless it's a car loan on a Prosche or something, jfc.
I understand it's a fast way to (try) and make sure people have enough money to pay, but I think there should be flexibility. I'd say good rental history and good credit score should be able to influence whether it's a hard requirement. Landlords like the 3x income requirement because it's fast and easy, and they don't want to put the time in examining a person's actual spending habits and credit reports in depth. (And I'm not saying that's wrong necessarily, just saying it's why they do it. It's not impossible for it to be done differently.)
tmcgee417 t1_ivblopy wrote
They want to be as close to guaranteed that they’ll get the rent money.