this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
283 points (86.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36173 readers
687 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Reason I'm asking is because I have an aunt that owns like maybe 3 - 5 (not sure the exact amount) small townhouses around the city (well, when I say "city" think of like the areas around a city where theres no tall buildings, but only small 2-3 stories single family homes in the neighborhood) and have these houses up for rent, and honestly, my aunt and her husband doesn't seem like a terrible people. They still work a normal job, and have to pay taxes like everyone else have to. They still have their own debts to pay. I'm not sure exactly how, but my parents say they did a combination of saving up money and taking loans from banks to be able to buy these properties, fix them, then put them up for rent. They don't overcharge, and usually charge slightly below the market to retain tenants, and fix things (or hire people to fix things) when their tenants request them.

I mean, they are just trying to survive in this capitalistic world. They wanna save up for retirement, and fund their kids to college, and leave something for their kids, so they have less of stress in life. I don't see them as bad people. I mean, its not like they own multiple apartment buildings, or doing excessive wealth hoarding.

Do leftists mean people like my aunt too? Or are they an exception to the "landlords are bad" sentinment?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry, I'm having a hard time making sense of your must-transfer-physical-object stance. How do you have a functioning society without services?

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right, so that makes sense then. We don't need an exchange of physical goods to make a fair exchange because labour and expertise has value. And ownership is not a service that merits payment. We agree on both of these points.

Renting out a home doesn't have to involve any work on the part of the owner, but it can. Think of all the work you need to do as a home owner and that you wouldn't need to do when renting. These are the services you get.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Think of all the work you need to do as a home owner and that you wouldn't need to do when renting. These are the services you get.

Then a landlord can invoice me if/when that work is done. Work like that isn't done every month though.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The fact that many of these expenses don't occur monthly is precisely why most people prefer having them split up and paid over time instead of being billed at the time of the work. It makes for much more predictable expenses, and we like predictability.

Imagine being the tenant that moves in just as the roof needs replacing and getting hit with a bill in the tens of thousands for a roof that you're only going to be using for a year or two.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then landlords should send me an itemized invoice that details each of the expenses incurred while I've been a tenant, a breakdown detailing how any rent payments cover the cost of those expenses, and a payment plan that we can negotiate to ensure both parties are getting fair deals.

Or they should give me equity in the property based on how much I pay in rent.

But they shouldn't simply charge an amount based on nothing other than "the market". That number never equates to the amount of work they put in, and makes them parasitic.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We already agreed that market rate is too high. What I'm trying to convince you of is that there exists a non-zero positive value that is reasonable to charge someone as rent. It sounds like you understand now how that number comes about and why it isn't zero, right? How to ensure that the deal is fair is a whole other matter. The point is that such a deal exists.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What I'm trying to convince you of is that there exists a non-zero positive value that is reasonable to charge someone as rent.

And I've already told you I don't agree. Paying a non-zero amount of rent is always parasitic.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be trying to convince you of it if you agreed, would I?

What's this business about itemized bills to make them fair if the bills are zero?

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Landlords don't do that. Until they do, they're parasites.

Also, I can't tell if you've realized by now, but everything I've been describing as ways to make landlording "fair" is just a roundabout description of ownership.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

We're not talking about what they currently do though. The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic. Where the threshold lies between parasitic and non-parasitic.

So far, I understand that you're convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don't understand is why*. We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

* Mainly to understand how a system with such a rule can make sense.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic.

Sell their properties to their tenants, or grant tenants equity in the property based on how much they pay in rent (ie, co-ownership).

So far, I understand that you're convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don't understand is why*.

For an exchange to not be parasitic, both parties must gain something equal to what they lose. This, by definition, means that a renter must be able to pay zero dollars for rent in months where the landlord doesn't have to make a mortgage payment and doesn't need to do any maintenance on the property.

We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

As I've already said, landlords don't provide a service equivalent to the payment provided, and the indefinite nature of a lease makes it impossible for a landlord to ever provide value equal to what a renter pays. As long as a tenant lives in a rented space, they have to pay a fee for the privilege, even if they've paid enough to pay for the mortgage many times over. You can't convince me that a landlord can provide potentially multiple properties worth of value over the span of a lease.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Can we keep the context of what we've previously discussed instead of rewinding the conversation and repeating ourselves? I thought we agreed earlier that it's fair for tenants to pay for expenses related to usage of the home and it makes sense to distribute that over time across all tenants.

[...] Imagine being the tenant that moves in just as the roof needs replacing and getting hit with a bill in the tens of thousands for a roof that you’re only going to be using for a year or two.

Then landlords should send me an itemized invoice that details each of the expenses incurred while I’ve been a tenant, a breakdown detailing how any rent payments cover the cost of those expenses, and a payment plan that we can negotiate to ensure both parties are getting fair deals. [...]

It sounds like you understand now how that number comes about and why it isn’t zero, right?

[...] I’ve already told you I don’t agree. Paying a non-zero amount of rent is always parasitic.

[...] What’s this business about itemized bills to make them fair if the bills are zero?

Landlords don’t do that. Until they do, they’re parasites. [...]

Did I misunderstand what you're saying here? I understood it as meaning that an itemized bill for your rent with the ability to negotiate in order to come to a fair deal for both parties is sufficient condition to qualify as non-parasitic.

You can't convince me that a landlord can provide potentially multiple properties worth of value over the span of a lease

Nor would I ever try to because I don't believe they do either.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Here's my point: if landlords change basically everything about how "renting" works so that it's basically indistinguishable from property ownership from the tenant's point of view, they'd qualify to be non-parasitic.