My landlord is a billionaire in Vegas, he owns thousands of properties, and you cannot convince me he contributes to any of them, only that you have brain damage or no connection to reality.
Fair point. But also it needles at capitalist pug fuckers to compare their bullshit to standard USSR bullshit, even if in this specific category the USSR was just completely fucking better.
I feel like its dead and gone and never cared about truth, so using it to piss off capitalists by making it sound even worse than it was (but still better than them) is the best memorial it could ask for.
parasitic grifter middle man exploiting everyone who needs it.
Giving someone who can’t buy a house, the ability to purchase a place to live without doing so, is exploitation? It’s literally just adding an option that person wouldn’t have otherwise, lmao.
The main question is if the rental price is less than the mortgage. I just recently experienced that a few months back when I was started looking for a house. The cost to rent it monthly was in some cases 3-400$ more than what the bank would have offered me for a mortgage. So my options were between trying to get a loan to get a house via mortgage and have something of value at the end of my loan. Or rent for equal or more expensive, get zero value back and have to deal with a middle man for every thing that ever goes wrong with the house fight that person every length of the way for any changes to the house. I think it’s obvious what my choice is going to be.
I’m thankfully in one of the better cases though, my family in Florida tells me about how it’s getting to the point where you can’t buy property there anymore, it’s all been purchased by people/buisness for use as Airbnb or rent out has a dedicated residence, which makes it extremely difficult for any of their kids to go out on their own because anything that’s decent has been taken and anything that remains is areas you would not want to live in. Their HOA is in the process of banning the practice thankfully but it’s apperently an issue.
Firmly believe that housing should be a “is this your primary residence? If not are you there at least once every 6 months?” and if you can’t answer yes to either of those questions it should be forced to be sold on the market. Remove the damn middleman from the equations.
How is it taking a cut? And that last sentence also makes no sense; if you remove the landlord from the equation, the house they owned, is now NOT owned, by anyone. The would-be renter can’t afford to buy it themself, so now they have nowhere to live.
Okay so you have a building with ten apartments in it. The landlords are all killed, o happy day
Do you think those people are homeless now?
I’m talking about if the landlords NEVER existed, not if they were magically erased from existence, WHILE people are renting from them (in which case ‘just give them that house for free lol’ is still a horrendous suggestion. To suggest with a straight face to kill homeowners and take what they owned is absolutely abhorrent. Literally murderous envy, disgusting).
The landlord never existed, meaning that home was never bought by them. None of those would-be renters can afford to buy the house, either. So yes, they are homeless now.
Removing renting means that your only real option for long-term shelter is to buy a house. Which means, obviously, that everyone who cannot afford to buy a house, will have nowhere to live.
If a building is vacant and unowned, somebody can just fucking live there.
lmao, how is it that a building is ever unowned, exactly? When it’s built, the one who paid to build it owns it. So how does it become ownerless?
Oh, right, your plan is to murder the owner and take it afterward. Are you offering yourself up in the same way? Shall anyone who’d like to, kill you and be entitled to all you used to possess?
What kind of insane hyper-libertarian world are you fantasizing about, you lunatic?
Oh honey you can’t even understand what I’m saying. Od say have a nice life, but youre obviously a landlord, and I’d probably rather you didn’t. Repent, I guess?
Nah. Rent should be free
Nobody needs to grift out a cut.
My landlord is a billionaire in Vegas, he owns thousands of properties, and you cannot convince me he contributes to any of them, only that you have brain damage or no connection to reality.
This deserves no reply beyond “lmao”
Sure, everything needs a parasitic grifter middle man exploiting everyone who needs it.
I forgot we live in the fucking USSR.
Funny that you’re using this as an insult when home ownership is one of the few things the USSR unmistakably did better than the west.
Fair point. But also it needles at capitalist pug fuckers to compare their bullshit to standard USSR bullshit, even if in this specific category the USSR was just completely fucking better.
I feel like its dead and gone and never cared about truth, so using it to piss off capitalists by making it sound even worse than it was (but still better than them) is the best memorial it could ask for.
Giving someone who can’t buy a house, the ability to purchase a place to live without doing so, is exploitation? It’s literally just adding an option that person wouldn’t have otherwise, lmao.
The main question is if the rental price is less than the mortgage. I just recently experienced that a few months back when I was started looking for a house. The cost to rent it monthly was in some cases 3-400$ more than what the bank would have offered me for a mortgage. So my options were between trying to get a loan to get a house via mortgage and have something of value at the end of my loan. Or rent for equal or more expensive, get zero value back and have to deal with a middle man for every thing that ever goes wrong with the house fight that person every length of the way for any changes to the house. I think it’s obvious what my choice is going to be.
I’m thankfully in one of the better cases though, my family in Florida tells me about how it’s getting to the point where you can’t buy property there anymore, it’s all been purchased by people/buisness for use as Airbnb or rent out has a dedicated residence, which makes it extremely difficult for any of their kids to go out on their own because anything that’s decent has been taken and anything that remains is areas you would not want to live in. Their HOA is in the process of banning the practice thankfully but it’s apperently an issue.
Firmly believe that housing should be a “is this your primary residence? If not are you there at least once every 6 months?” and if you can’t answer yes to either of those questions it should be forced to be sold on the market. Remove the damn middleman from the equations.
Businesses shouldn’t need to be run out of your home, but other than that yes I agree.
No. Its taking a cut of that option. Why does everything have to be fucking owned?
How is it taking a cut? And that last sentence also makes no sense; if you remove the landlord from the equation, the house they owned, is now NOT owned, by anyone. The would-be renter can’t afford to buy it themself, so now they have nowhere to live.
Okay so you have a building with ten apartments in it. The landlords are all killed, o happy day
Do you think those people are homeless now?
What do they do when the old lady in #10 dies?
Do you think they just leave it fucking empty?
What do you think they do when the roof needs replacing?
Do you think they just let it rot?
The landlord provides nothing. If a building is vacant and unowned, somebody can just fucking live there.
I’m talking about if the landlords NEVER existed, not if they were magically erased from existence, WHILE people are renting from them (in which case ‘just give them that house for free lol’ is still a horrendous suggestion. To suggest with a straight face to kill homeowners and take what they owned is absolutely abhorrent. Literally murderous envy, disgusting).
The landlord never existed, meaning that home was never bought by them. None of those would-be renters can afford to buy the house, either. So yes, they are homeless now.
Removing renting means that your only real option for long-term shelter is to buy a house. Which means, obviously, that everyone who cannot afford to buy a house, will have nowhere to live.
lmao, how is it that a building is ever unowned, exactly? When it’s built, the one who paid to build it owns it. So how does it become ownerless?
Oh, right, your plan is to murder the owner and take it afterward. Are you offering yourself up in the same way? Shall anyone who’d like to, kill you and be entitled to all you used to possess?
What kind of insane hyper-libertarian world are you fantasizing about, you lunatic?
Oh honey you can’t even understand what I’m saying. Od say have a nice life, but youre obviously a landlord, and I’d probably rather you didn’t. Repent, I guess?