A landlord does not take housing off the market. Rental housing is still on the market for families to live in.
Rent costs more than mortgage payments because it includes the payment for services to the owner. If you work a job you expect to get paid for your work and so does the landlord.
I said they take property off the market, not housing. By buying it and holding it indefinitely, that property is no longer available for purchasing.
Yes, services. Services that an owner could very well get done himself/herself without the bureaucratic overhead of having to use the landlord as an intermediary to a contractor.
The only landlords that could get things done faster than doing it yourself are those who have contractors and supplies on call. In other words, management companies or multiple-property landlords—the same ones who are in it solely to profit from the lack of available housing in urban areas.
The property is still available for families who want to rent it. You take all the rentals off the market and those who want to rent housing will have no choices.
There’s still many properties available to purchases. Having a mixture of some properties for rent and some of sale gives people choices.
Many people don’t have the skill or resources to manage their own property, let alone pay for large expenses all at once.
We can agree that the land and building is still available as housing, but it’s not property. The renter has no stake in the real estate. They don’t own it. It’s not their property, and their privilege to stay in it is subject to the terms of the actual owner—the landlord.
There’s still many properties available to purchases.
Sure, if you can afford an $700k apartment with a down payment of jack-diddily-squat because most of your income went to paying off some other guy’s mortgage and topping up their savings.
While we’re at it, let’s keep pretending that people purchasing property for the sole purpose of rental doesn’t artificially increase demand and drive up pricing.
Many people don’t have the skill or resources to manage their own property.
If you don’t have the skill to Google the number of an electrician or other tradie, I don’t know what to tell you.
And therefore don’t have to incur the burden of large expenses such as replacing a roof, a sewer line, etc.
if you can afford an $700k apartment
If you want to cherry pick an example of the most expensive areas of the country instead of the more reasonable examples of a $70k single family house. But then the person buying the property is responsible for all the repairs and maintenance.
doesn’t artificially increase demand and drive up pricing
The lack of housing development with increased demand creates a housing shortage. When there’s a shortage, pricing goes up. The United States is at least a decade behind where they should be in housing development.
That’s what a mortgage is for.
A mortgage just pays the bank for the loan. A mortgage payment does NOT pay for repairs on the property. If the furnace goes out in the middle of winter, it’s up to the homeowner to come up with the money – typically thousands of dollars all at once.
They buy all the houses and put them up on a subscription service that costs more than what the person would’ve paid for it and keep increasing the prices every month.
When someone is on a lease, the rent amount cannot increase during the lease period. At the end of the lease period, the person is free to move somewhere else.
That’s incorrect. Houses need maintenance. They are not self healing. Things break, items need replacing, grass needs to be cut, light bulbs need to be changed, etc. Tenants also need to be managed.
Interesting that every rental I’ve been in is in some state of disrepair, if that’s what you claim the extra is for. You’re purposely avoiding the fact that rentals are there to make the landlord money, and nothing more.
That’s not the definition in the slightest. You don’t seem to have an understanding of what a landlord does.
A land lord does fuck all.
A landlord provides housing.
FTFY
A landlord takes property off the market and provides housing that costs more than mortgage payments.
FTFY
A landlord does not take housing off the market. Rental housing is still on the market for families to live in.
Rent costs more than mortgage payments because it includes the payment for services to the owner. If you work a job you expect to get paid for your work and so does the landlord.
I said they take property off the market, not housing. By buying it and holding it indefinitely, that property is no longer available for purchasing.
Yes, services. Services that an owner could very well get done himself/herself without the bureaucratic overhead of having to use the landlord as an intermediary to a contractor.
The only landlords that could get things done faster than doing it yourself are those who have contractors and supplies on call. In other words, management companies or multiple-property landlords—the same ones who are in it solely to profit from the lack of available housing in urban areas.
The property is still available for families who want to rent it. You take all the rentals off the market and those who want to rent housing will have no choices.
There’s still many properties available to purchases. Having a mixture of some properties for rent and some of sale gives people choices.
Many people don’t have the skill or resources to manage their own property, let alone pay for large expenses all at once.
You’re conflating “property” with “housing”.
We can agree that the land and building is still available as housing, but it’s not property. The renter has no stake in the real estate. They don’t own it. It’s not their property, and their privilege to stay in it is subject to the terms of the actual owner—the landlord.
Sure, if you can afford an $700k apartment with a down payment of jack-diddily-squat because most of your income went to paying off some other guy’s mortgage and topping up their savings.
While we’re at it, let’s keep pretending that people purchasing property for the sole purpose of rental doesn’t artificially increase demand and drive up pricing.
If you don’t have the skill to Google the number of an electrician or other tradie, I don’t know what to tell you.
That’s what a mortgage is for.
And therefore don’t have to incur the burden of large expenses such as replacing a roof, a sewer line, etc.
If you want to cherry pick an example of the most expensive areas of the country instead of the more reasonable examples of a $70k single family house. But then the person buying the property is responsible for all the repairs and maintenance.
The lack of housing development with increased demand creates a housing shortage. When there’s a shortage, pricing goes up. The United States is at least a decade behind where they should be in housing development.
A mortgage just pays the bank for the loan. A mortgage payment does NOT pay for repairs on the property. If the furnace goes out in the middle of winter, it’s up to the homeowner to come up with the money – typically thousands of dollars all at once.
They buy all the houses and put them up on a subscription service that costs more than what the person would’ve paid for it and keep increasing the prices every month.
When someone is on a lease, the rent amount cannot increase during the lease period. At the end of the lease period, the person is free to move somewhere else.
If the mortgage payment is the SAME or MORE as the rent, you aren’t providing shit.
That’s incorrect. Houses need maintenance. They are not self healing. Things break, items need replacing, grass needs to be cut, light bulbs need to be changed, etc. Tenants also need to be managed.
Interesting that every rental I’ve been in is in some state of disrepair, if that’s what you claim the extra is for. You’re purposely avoiding the fact that rentals are there to make the landlord money, and nothing more.
Your experiences are not the experiences of everyone who rents.