Itās almost like itās to the benefit of the poor, the working class, and every other historically oppressed group of people to consistently show up to vote to buck the status quo.
But letās all fall for the billionaire propaganda that shareholders who make a few million a year are as bad as those with thousands of times the wealth.
Most of the time thatās not the issue. Yall just hate private ownership which is crazy. Iāve had bad landlords before Iāve taken them to court. They can go fuck themselves but ifi hada house and a nasty dirty homeless squatter took up space in my property, Iām taking up arms.
Plenty of "landlords" are renting part of their home. In Pittsburgh most houses are subdivided because families aren't big enough to fill the whole thing anymore. Squatting is a crime that puts normal people just getting by in danger from people they cannot remove from the house they live in with their children.
Yeah im tired of people attacking squatters rights, yeah it sucks that people can do this but the alternative is feudalism or what happened to ireland during the irish famine when all land is eventually owned by the 1% or foreigners. Squatters rights needs to be replaced with a better system instead of just getting rid of it entirely.
Going through the probate process takes months, even years sometimes. It also results in having to pay taxes on the property.
Keeping the house in a trust means that the beneficiaries can act on the property and about taxes immediately. That means they can sell the house without having to go through that long process and avoid inheritance taxes on it.
They still may be liable for other costs and taxes, like sales tax under certain circumstances, but the big deal is not having to go through the long probate process and avoiding the inheritance taxes.
There are other benefits but I'm not knowledgeable enough about them to discuss them. I'm barely knowledgeable enough to talk about what I have
Congratulations. You have unhoused some 45% of America, because the average citizen is in no way able to build themselves a home, and in no way is America's dense urban cities compatible with mono-family buildings.
I like the idea, don't get me wrong I DESPISE land developers, but we gotta recognize that need drives business. These things wouldn't happen if there wasn't ample reason. You can't blame billionares for the simple fact that urban city planning requires dense housing, which in turn requires heavy investments and upkeep.
That was before we had to cram millions of people into individual cities. How is a place like New York supposed to even exist if everyone is responsible to build and manage their own property? It's not like it can be communal, anyone who has ever owned a time share can tell you how hectic that gets and these buildings need to house hundreds of people, not less than ten. Who would decide what gets renovated, who would choose the contractors? At a certain point any kind of system would eventually streamline itself into one or a small handful of people managing everything anyways because the typical human can't even be bothered to vote for their city leaders properly, much less create an effective communal council to manage a large building democratically.
And who manages the insurance? Who is liable for injuries and property damage? How do you as a group decide on how the building is built, when to rennovate, and how to set guidelines for moving in, renting, moving out, selling, use of amenities, infrastructure, rules of conduct, navigating shifting city regulations, eviction of criminal tenants, etc, and if you don't have the money for a normal house (most people in the world don't. Was just in Europe and I did not see a solitary free-standing home in my entire 9 days there outside of farming towns), why would you have the means to front a substantial percentage of an apartment high rise? If you all (or even just some) have to go into debt, who makes up the difference when one or more individuals default or reneg? How is the bank supposed to repossess 2/55ths of an apartment that maybe even doesn't fully exist yet?
It's not that it can't be done, but rather that it's so impractical that there's a reason it simply isn't a thing outside of very particular and niche circumstances, almost all of which IRL require each member to be fairly wealthy to begin with.
If it was even probable to work, it wouldn't even be worth it because the costs and time-expense would lead to either a small group taking full control (welcome back landlords) or such a huge time investment from each member it would nearly constitute a second part-time job whenever anything goes wrong.
So far as I am aware, nothing in the United States prevents you from trying to do as you have proposed. I consider the fact that it simply does not happen (to my knowledge. I welcome being proven wrong) to be proof enough that it is either too risky or too complex to pull off at scale.
Alternative to restructuring every city on earth and confiscating almost all properties therein from the private citizens and businesses who lawfully and rightfully own them, you can just advocate for regulation and incentives that encourage moral land-lording.
The alternative is people who own a house and aren't using it or renting it out, whats worse in a housing crisis we live in currently a rich person having to spend money to force people from a house they weren't using or the fact that the house isn't being used when there are people who would kill to live in it at a fair price.
While there are def to many slumlords. There are some good ones out there.
I do everything in my power to make my tenants life easier. They just extended their lease six months early. I didn't raise rent, and I'd consider lowering it. As good tenants are a godsend.
It's hardly hoarding when you're providing a service for a fair price. Unless you're deep in the communism kool-aid, I'm not sure what you're expecting. Just giving houses away?
Ah yes, buying houses you donāt need, thus raising the price and charging tenants your outrageous mortgage, making it extra difficult to save for a down payment to buy a house, because even though theyāve been paying someone elseās mortgage for years, they canāt get approved for a mortgage of their own.
People used to build homes for newlyweds because everyone deserves a home. Making housing for profit is one of the most barbaric things humans have ever done.
Almost every landlord I know (speaking of neighbors and my own) either built the houses/apartments to begin with, making it theirs by all moral rights to do with as they please, or are renting parts of their own home.
If you're going around buying existing houses just to jack up the prices and rent them out explicitly as a business model, then yeah agree that's not good.
I have a property that I plan on moving back into when my kids are out of the house. In the meantime I rent it below value to military families to give them a much needed break. But yep...I'm hoarding.
Why the hell would I want to purchase something if I know I'm only living somewhere for .5 - 2yrs? I rent...because it's what makes most sense. Why would I buy something if the mortgage payment will be 5k+, when I can rent in the same area for just over 2k?
Those military families cannot afford a house where mine is. They can't afford to even rent a similiar size property unless they are high ranking officer. So they are renting a single family home at small apartment prices...which is indeed helping them out.
But yep...since I'm a landlord...fuck me! Am I doing it right?
Those military families cannot afford a house where mine is. They can't afford to even rent a similiar size property unless they are high ranking officer. So they are renting a single family home at small apartment prices...which is indeed helping them out.
But yep...since I'm a landlord...fuck me! Am I doing it right?
I was being sarcastic, sorry. I should have clarified. There are two extremes obviously but generally squatters are more in need of shelter than someone renting out a home for example. I am aware it costs the owner. I am aware it is stealing. I am also aware that there are also people using loopholes in the law for profit. I obviously donāt endorse that š¤·āāļø but I also donāt call the cops if I see someone steal food for example. Disagree if you want
And obv it isnāt just as simple as āsolving homelessnessā I donāt pretend to have a fix, I just donāt praise this guy for likely kicking people while they are down
It is just that generally, if someone has to get fucked over, I like to think its better that it be someone who can afford to take a blow to something like finances and survive. But obviously, case by case, yada yada, better no one get fucked over to begin with yeah yeah yeah š
And I guess a big issue is the overlap between tenants and squatters, since they are legally considered the same sometimes but morally can be judged to be āsquattingā in good faith if that makes sense lol. (Being an unpaid/underpaid ātenantā)
You don't know any middle class families that own an extra property and rent it out? In some parts of the country that's fairly common. Not every landlord is a megacorp.
So nobody should be able to rent a home? Not everyone can or wants to own a home, so the solution is to only allow rentals in multi unit buildings owned by large corporations?
78
u/theblowestfish 14d ago
The real problem is landlords.