Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)ZA
Posts
0
Comments
1,220
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Services can be an equal exchange too. A laborer receives your money, you receive a service which requires that laborer's active time and expertise.

    Renting is not a service in the same way. You pay indefinitely, but you aren't being provided a laborer's time and expertise equivalent to the money being paid. Owning a thing isn't something that requires a landlord's active time or expertise, it's something that happens passively.

  • I say we blame both. People that abstained, voted 3rd party, voted for Trump out of spite, etc. deserve their share of the blame for allowing the absolute worst president in history to have a second term. The DNC is to blame for running a campaign and candidates so milquetoast that people felt the desire to protest vote. Both things are true.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.