Honestly, I don’t see this as orphan crushing, maybe I’m weird but people needed a place to live they are getting it and the landlord gave them a rebate which in turn makes them want to take better care of the place they live at, seems like a win all around.
depending on what kind of self employment its often also still pretty simple. however shit definitely gets complicated for anyone depending on your situation
Also, part of what rent is supposed to cover is maintenance for your living space. If you live in a way that needs less maintenance, and the landlord gives that part of the rent back to you because of it? Fuck yeah! Your landlord isn't a greedy prick!
If they have no profit incentive why lease it out at all? They need to cover the mortgage, repairs, and have some money left over to put in their pocket or reinvest. If people can't make a profit on housing there will be no incentive to build more of it or renovate old buildings. While some tenants take good care of the space and don't cause expensive damages some utterly trash them and those costs have to be covered with a little left over. In my old building some people were getting kicked out for not paying rent and using drugs openly in the public spaces so they took a hammer to the walls, Brooke the sinks, and tore apart the refrigerator before disappearing in the middle of the night.
Landlords make so much more than you think. A landlord willing to give $400 back is rolling in cash made off of simply owning property. Economically, it's no different than a feudal lord giving good servants a free meal. We gotta start building some class consciousness...
I'm an accountant that does personal tax returns each year and many of them own rental properties. Many of them are not rolling in cash. The rental properties build up equity by paying off the mortgage but actual cash flow tends to be break even over the long run, especially if expensive repairs are needed.
Landlords don't provide housing, builders do. If there were no landlords, housing would be cheaper because when you buy 2+ houses but only need 1, you artificially increase the price of housing. Builders would still exist and be profitable without landlords.
Our feudal lords are so gracious! He accepted only 5 bushels from this year's harvest instead of the typical 10 bushels. My family will survive the winter because of his boundless kindness. This economic system is awesome!
Agreed. While the other comment has truth, I’d argue most rental properties are owned by for-profit investors or groups.
Systemic issues revolving around a growing population, increasing (housing and all other) costs, inflation, and stagnant wages, have cultivated this situation in major cities into something not far from collusion. Perhaps a crossbreed between collusion and monopolization. People need a place to live, yes. But with near balanced net income, buying a house is difficult. This leaves property ownership to those that already have the free capital, or at least enough to satisfy a mortgage requirements.
Property owner John Doe buys a house in the greater metro area for $250k and puts it up for rent for $1800/month. People will argue, “market competition will drive the rates down”, but that is not entirely true for land. As we said earlier, people need a place to live, and moving every lease is emotionally, physically, and financially, exhausting.
Take water or electricity for example. You can’t exactly just decide to buy somewhere else because of prices. Sure, many places have regulations, but those on housing are relatively relaxed, if they exist at all.
Thus, IMO, giving a “rebate”, or in other words, taking less profit, on an enterprise with economically systemic traits such as housing, albeit superficially wholesome, still does qualify as orphan crushing.
I think it fits despite being a weirdly framed good thing. Ultimately, they're just reinvesting in their property in a way that pays back more over. Good tenant. Good landlord. Shit real estate economy. If someone can pay a mortgage-worth of rent they can pay a mortgage. Renting should not be such an important layer of bricks in the pyramid. The real issue is the collaboration, price fixing, and piles-of-money owning 100-10,000 properties as just assets.
People hate on landlords, but it's just someone providing a service for a price. Having to buy a house every time you move isn't feasible for most people, but it's not small time landlords that created the current issues in the housing market. It's private equity buying up houses in areas where there's already scarcity thus increasing demand and prices. Sure, scumlords exist as well, but this isn't one of them.
This post has been flaired as "Humor". This means that it does not depict a real event, and as such shouldn't be taken seriously.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Honestly, I don’t see this as orphan crushing, maybe I’m weird but people needed a place to live they are getting it and the landlord gave them a rebate which in turn makes them want to take better care of the place they live at, seems like a win all around.
I get the feeling that the OP might complain that a tax refund is denying them the opportunity to complain.
I pay $86 to see that I owe the government $1. Sadly, I need to learn to file my own taxes instead of constantly complaining
Unless you’re self-employed, filing your own taxes is brain-dead easy.
depending on what kind of self employment its often also still pretty simple. however shit definitely gets complicated for anyone depending on your situation
Also, part of what rent is supposed to cover is maintenance for your living space. If you live in a way that needs less maintenance, and the landlord gives that part of the rent back to you because of it? Fuck yeah! Your landlord isn't a greedy prick!
I was thinking how this should be the norm, but overall, most are paying rent that covers more than overhead for the private equity owner.
If they have no profit incentive why lease it out at all? They need to cover the mortgage, repairs, and have some money left over to put in their pocket or reinvest. If people can't make a profit on housing there will be no incentive to build more of it or renovate old buildings. While some tenants take good care of the space and don't cause expensive damages some utterly trash them and those costs have to be covered with a little left over. In my old building some people were getting kicked out for not paying rent and using drugs openly in the public spaces so they took a hammer to the walls, Brooke the sinks, and tore apart the refrigerator before disappearing in the middle of the night.
Landlords make so much more than you think. A landlord willing to give $400 back is rolling in cash made off of simply owning property. Economically, it's no different than a feudal lord giving good servants a free meal. We gotta start building some class consciousness...
I'm an accountant that does personal tax returns each year and many of them own rental properties. Many of them are not rolling in cash. The rental properties build up equity by paying off the mortgage but actual cash flow tends to be break even over the long run, especially if expensive repairs are needed.
Landlords don't provide housing, builders do. If there were no landlords, housing would be cheaper because when you buy 2+ houses but only need 1, you artificially increase the price of housing. Builders would still exist and be profitable without landlords.
You have down payment money?
I'd think the injustice is that these people probably can't afford to own
Our feudal lords are so gracious! He accepted only 5 bushels from this year's harvest instead of the typical 10 bushels. My family will survive the winter because of his boundless kindness. This economic system is awesome!
Yeah, of the person was struggling to pay their rent, THEN it would be orphan crushing. This is just like a small christmas gift
Agreed. While the other comment has truth, I’d argue most rental properties are owned by for-profit investors or groups.
Systemic issues revolving around a growing population, increasing (housing and all other) costs, inflation, and stagnant wages, have cultivated this situation in major cities into something not far from collusion. Perhaps a crossbreed between collusion and monopolization. People need a place to live, yes. But with near balanced net income, buying a house is difficult. This leaves property ownership to those that already have the free capital, or at least enough to satisfy a mortgage requirements.
Property owner John Doe buys a house in the greater metro area for $250k and puts it up for rent for $1800/month. People will argue, “market competition will drive the rates down”, but that is not entirely true for land. As we said earlier, people need a place to live, and moving every lease is emotionally, physically, and financially, exhausting.
Take water or electricity for example. You can’t exactly just decide to buy somewhere else because of prices. Sure, many places have regulations, but those on housing are relatively relaxed, if they exist at all.
Thus, IMO, giving a “rebate”, or in other words, taking less profit, on an enterprise with economically systemic traits such as housing, albeit superficially wholesome, still does qualify as orphan crushing.
Thank you for putting it in better words. It should be the norm, rebates for renters, but owners want to keep their “profit”
Do you think it's immoral to make a profit for renting out your car?
Oof. Big miss.
lol, lmao even, people are actually defending l*ndlords in the comments
Op is a bitter communist who would charge double rent if only he could own an apartment and rent it out to anyone.
I think it fits despite being a weirdly framed good thing. Ultimately, they're just reinvesting in their property in a way that pays back more over. Good tenant. Good landlord. Shit real estate economy. If someone can pay a mortgage-worth of rent they can pay a mortgage. Renting should not be such an important layer of bricks in the pyramid. The real issue is the collaboration, price fixing, and piles-of-money owning 100-10,000 properties as just assets.
People hate on landlords, but it's just someone providing a service for a price. Having to buy a house every time you move isn't feasible for most people, but it's not small time landlords that created the current issues in the housing market. It's private equity buying up houses in areas where there's already scarcity thus increasing demand and prices. Sure, scumlords exist as well, but this isn't one of them.