Are landlords inherently unethical?

[Tawpgun]

Working on page and argument summaries for this thread but it's moving a lot faster than I thought.

In the meantime, what about non-managing landlords/owners?

For instance (and to be transparent about my conflicts of interest) I rent in SF in a 4 unit building. The manager is quite nice and lenient. The property was purchased over 50 years ago so I assume it's paid off. The owner keeps raising rent to match market. The owner also only upgrades units when the renter leaves and they can charge a lot more for rent. I've offered to pay for the upgrades they've done in other apartments to be applied to mine out of my own pocket but I've been denied, presumably because they would prefer that I leave my rent controlled place so they can jump the amount significantly (my apartment's clone accross the hall goes for $1k more a month. I've lived in this apartment for 5 years-ish). Is this ethical because it is the owner's property?

This is a common occurrence in SF.

Click to shrink...

This is a tough question. Personally, on moral ground, if that rent controlled unit is still turning the same profit it was when the rent was established than it is morally repugnant to upcharge by a huge amount for minor improvements or just by raising to meet "market" values.

But its a tough ask when EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT.

The problem here is we have no solution to stop this feedback loop of rising prices. Rent control obviously isn't the golden solution. Honestly I think the biggest roadblock is zoning laws and NIMBY. You need to build more affordable housing. The issue is trying to convince a developer to build affordable housing in an area where they could make a SHITTON more money by building luxury apartments instead. This is an area where we need to address the fact that free market capitalism has largely gone too far unchecked. This is where zoning laws would come in. Which are a BITCH to get enacted due to vested interests, lobbying, and unfortunately grassroots NIMBY movements.



Pata Hikari
Yes Capitalism has its glaring issues... But honestly what is the solution for housing. If you could remake the country tomorrow how would you handle housing and property?

 

[citrusred]

The point I was getting at is that in every single one of these threads you'll find some 'socialist' whinging about labour being stolen but also want to reap the benefits of someone else's labour. Every time.

Click to shrink...

Then tell that to someone else? No one cares what nefarious plan you think someone is coming up with to steal your wages. I just don't want to have to get price gouged for the privalage of living where I have to work.

 

[KHarvey16]

You can when you own enough of your own debt. Look it up, US government + Federal reserve own the most of US debt compared to any other singular source. We bailed out the banks in 08 but we can't print a measly few Hundo billion to house everyone? Disgusting

ITT:

Chocolate covered Republican talking points that don't even taste like chocolate

Click to shrink...

The problem is circulating currency. After the crash in 08 demand was low and money was being held, so we didn't get increased inflation. Printing hundreds of billions extra (above and beyond the currency removed through taxes) now that goes right into the economy would cause inflation.

 

[Interested Observer]

Then tell that to someone else? No one cares what nefarious plan you think someone is coming up with to steal your wages. I just don't want to have to get price gouged for the privalage of living where I have to work.

Click to shrink...

What? You know you quoted me right?

 

[citrusred]

What? You know you quoted me right?

Click to shrink...

Honestly I probably forgot or mixed you up with someone else. I just get annoyed when people try their internet 'what about thing' bullshit when people try to discuss actual real life issues their having. Wouldn't have bothered posting in the thread at all otherwise.

 

[Midramble]

Landlords and renters alike, what do you think about TICs (Tenancy in Common)

For those unaware, TIC is an arrangement where multiple people own the property with each paying their part of the mortgage and paying into the maintenance fees. Similarly to a rental situation the maintenance itself is normally done by a third party or contractor. The benefit of this arrangement over rentals is that each tenant also paying into their own equity instead of a single owner.

I've seen this in quite a few places. My parents lived in one in NY for a while. The benefit is that it's a cheaper entry level than owning but also the monthly payments go towards your own equity. The best of both worlds of ownership and renting. The challenges are dispute resolution and slightly more friction in implementation than renting.

What if this setup was more often government subsidized? It currently already is with BMR units, down payment assistance programs, and community land trusts.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

Huh? No it isn't. With regular levels of demand printing too much money causes inflation.

Click to shrink...

Yeah but the biggest issues with inflation are that the values of investment decreases and the prices of goods are increased; the former matters only if you're concerned about property as a source of investment (which isn't too important in the circumstances where people own their homes outright in the first place) and we currently have means to ensure the people in the country have assistance for food by way of SNAP, etc. (yes, I acknowledge these things are underfunded but, again, symptom, etc. etc.).

A lot of people out there would probably gladly have their dollar not go very far if they were still otherwise guaranteed shelter and food, because they're still poor now and don't get enough of either...

 

[KHarvey16]

Yeah but the biggest issues with inflation are that the values of investment decreases and the prices of goods are increased; the former matters only if you're concerned about property as a source of investment (which isn't too important in the circumstances where people own their homes outright in the first place) and we currently have means to ensure the people in the country have assistance for food by way of SNAP, etc. (yes, I acknowledge these things are underfunded but, again, symptom, etc. etc.).

A lot of people out there would probably gladly have their dollar not go very far if they were still otherwise guaranteed shelter and food, because they're still poor now and don't get enough of either...

Click to shrink...

If it was 1880 that sounds great. Unfortunately the dollar competes on a global platform.

 

[xxracerxx]

Landlords and renters alike, what do you think about TICs (Tenancy in Common)

For those unaware, TIC is an arrangement where multiple people own the property with each paying their part of the mortgage and paying into the maintenance fees. Similarly to a rental situation the maintenance itself is normally done by a third party or contractor. The benefit of this arrangement over rentals is that each tenant also paying into their own equity instead of a single owner.

I've seen this in quite a few places. My parents lived in one in NY for a while. The benefit is that it's a cheaper entry level than owning but also the monthly payments go towards your own equity. The best of both worlds of ownership and renting. The challenges are dispute resolution and slightly more friction in implementation than renting.

What if this setup was more often government subsidized? It currently already is with BMR units, down payment assistance programs, and community land trusts.

Click to shrink...

How do you collect on your equity if you leave?

 

[Clefargle]

The problem is circulating currency. After the crash in 08 demand was low and money was being held, so we didn't get increased inflation. Printing hundreds of billions extra (above and beyond the currency removed through taxes) now that goes right into the economy would cause inflation.

Click to shrink...

that isn't a problem and it's revisionism to act like inflation was a fear even in that scenario. The point is, we can inject large amounts of money into the US economy without much issue. In fact it would be a stimulus and create a lot of construction jobs. We inject the better part of a trillion into the military every year. That doesn't inflate us out the wazoo because we have tens of trillions worth in the Fed reserve and other bonds. So the USA can literally print enough money to fix this. And it would help the broader economy outside of just impoverished. It's literally a Republican talking point to suggest that the deficit or inflation are reasons not to spend money to offer meaningful social programs to every American universally.

 

[Midramble]

How do you collect on your equity if you leave?

Click to shrink...

You either sell your share of the equity to a replacement tenant, like you would do in selling a house, or if the group/property is large enough, the group buys your share and sells it to your replacement tenant.

 

[Coyote Zamora]

Technically, I am a landlord since I in a property that I don't live in although my only tenants have been my own children. I have no desire to rent it out after the children move be it for airb&b or regular tenants. I don't agree that I am unethical because u was lucky enough to but a small place young and then a larger place later without selling my existing property. I think it plan will be to sell it after retirement and use those proceeds to provide living expenses for us.

 

[kai3345]

Yes. next question.

Even if your landlord is great and maintains the property you're renting, they are still extracting wealth and value from you simply by owning and maintaining property. They are creating nothing beyond the opportunity to give them your money.

Click to shrink...

how evil

 

[AndrewDean84]

My landlord is pretty great. Raised rent once in 6 years, but only $50. Lets me hire whoever I want for repairs, or if I do it myself, you takes into a factor my labor as well.

 

[KHarvey16]

that isn't a problem and it's revisionism to act like inflation was a fear even in that scenario. The point is, we can inject large amounts of money into the US economy without much issue. In fact it would be a stimulus and create a lot of construction jobs. We inject the better part of a trillion into the military every year. That doesn't inflate us out the wazoo because we have tens of trillions worth in the Fed reserve and other bonds. So the USA can literally print enough money to fix this. And it would help the broader economy outside of just impoverished. It's literally a Republican talking point to suggest that the deficit or inflation are reasons not to spend money to offer meaningful social programs to every American universally.

Click to shrink...

The deficit, the difference between taxes and expenses, is important depending on the state of the economy. Running up a deficit printing money is good when demand is down, but bad when demand is good. There is an inflation target that the current levels are doing pretty well with. Just printing more without an offsetting destruction of currency (taxes) would upset the balance. If you want to wait until the next crash by all means go for it.

 

[datbapple]

no it is not unethical to own land. what in the world do some of yall be thinkin?????????? how do yall function day to day??????

 

[Clefargle]

The deficit, the difference between taxes and expenses, is important depending on the state of the economy. Running up a deficit printing money is good when demand is down, but bad when demand is good. There is an inflation target that the current levels are doing pretty well with. Just printing more without an offsetting destruction of currency (taxes) would upset the balance. If you want to wait until the next crash by all means go for it.

Click to shrink...

a crash isn't required for this we are talking about hundreds of billions. A minute amount compared to current GDP. It's silly to even have this conversation since we just put 700+ bn into the military budget. It's fucking ridiculous to think less than a trillion would tank the economy

 

[Clefargle]

no it is not unethical to own land. what in the world do some of yall be thinkin?????????? how do yall function day to day??????

Click to shrink...

d-did you actually think Americans own their land? They don't, the US gubbermint does

 

[WascallyWabbit]

how evil

Click to shrink...

Evil bastard came over the other day and had the audacity to fix my leaky roof.

 

[KHarvey16]

a crash isn't required for this we are talking about hundreds of billions. A minute amount compared to current GDP. It's silly to even have this conversation since we just put 700+ bn into the military budget. It's fucking ridiculous to think less than a trillion would tank the economy

Click to shrink...

A budget mostly offset by taxes. Are you reading what I'm typing?

 

[Clefargle]

A budget mostly offset by taxes. Are you reading what I'm typing?

Click to shrink...

we just gave trillions in tax cuts to the 1%. Are you reading what you're posting?

Trump tax cuts

 

[KHarvey16]

we just gave trillions in tax cuts to the 1%. Are you reading what you're posting?

Click to shrink...

The deficit is around $950 billion this year. If it grew 20% that would impact inflation. The tax cuts likely did as well, but our emergence from the low inflation of the recession and current interest rates are slowing it. Leaving that for too long would be bad and it's part of why democrats think they suck and will change them. Tax cuts in good economic times are a bad idea because the deficit starts to matter.

 

[Combo]

The number of people who missed the OP's points is amazing.

I guess what we need is a balance. In a state where house prices are being pushed up because there is scarcity, the government should restrict the number of landlords. Free markets don't work in that situation.

 

[Cat Party]

d-did you actually think Americans own their land? They don't, the US gubbermint does

Click to shrink...

Oh lord, are you gonna start talking about the fringes on the flags in US courts now...

 

[Combo]

Unless everyone owns a house, you need landlords....

Click to shrink...

And landlords are the ones who make it harder for others to buy houses.

 

[LosDaddie]

No. Not at all. Someone is going to own the property.

I swear, some of y'all have far too much faith in govt.

Outside the lunatic left, lol no.

Click to shrink...

It kind of feels like it's showing exactly that? Being told you're unethical for not letting people live on your property for free is .. something. I can't imagine many other social circles anyone would say that with a straight face.

Click to shrink...

Owning property is evil and the government should own everything is, like, final boss of Leftism. Fucking Red on top of Mt. Silver type shit.

Click to shrink...

All of these are true.

 

[Clefargle]

The deficit is around $950 billion this year. If it grew 20% that would impact inflation. The tax cuts likely did as well, but our emergence from the low inflation of the recession and current interest rates are slowing it. Leaving that for too long would be bad and it's part of why democrats think they suck and will change them. Tax cuts in good economic times are a bad idea because the deficit starts to matter.

Click to shrink...

You can't be this naive. These are just republican talking points. Spending is UP under trump at the same time as tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.

Oh lord, are you gonna start talking about the fringes on the flags in US courts now...

Click to shrink...

I'm not a fucking sovereign citizen, look up Eminent domain.

 

[Starviper]

No, they are not inherently unethical, but many come close. My current landlord company is honestly one of the coolest companies - They do not do 3/6/12 month leases, only month-to-month at a fair price given the area. My rent has only ever gone up 20$ a year, and when they raise rent we get a notice that we're free to choose to leave before it gets bumped up.

I've had a landlord where they had some issues with flash flooding and the management all ended up quitting, the new people did not give a fuck. My apartment was considered condemned for a period of time and they still took me to court over it; we ended up splitting whatever they were trying to pin on me 50/50 (I broke my lease and did not accept their offer of another temporary apartment - I simply wanted OUT).

 

[Clefargle]

Owning property is evil and the government should own everything is, like, final boss of Leftism. Fucking Red on top of Mt. Silver type shit.

Click to shrink...

the Federal government actually owns the land, they allow people to register parts of it via tax. But stop paying that tax or get in the way of any sufficient infrastructure expansion and you'll find out quick that any "claim" you have to that land is via paying taxes. The Native American reservations are probably the only legal exception.

 

[KHarvey16]

You can't be this naive. These are just republican talking points. Spending is UP under trump at the same time as tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, and that's bad. I'm not sure why you would think I thought otherwise. I'm sorry economics doesn't work the way you wish it would.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

I'm not a fucking sovereign citizen, look up Eminent domain.

Click to shrink...

Yeah and furthermore if the US government isn't the end authority for land use in the US, someone had better alert the native folks because I'm sure they'll have opinions on it
EDIT: ah go figure I made this right before you typed up your newest comment

 

[Pata Hikari]

No. Not at all. Someone is going to own the property.

Click to shrink...

Yes the people who use the property should own it so the landlords should have their rent-seeking butts thrown out and give the homes to the people living in them.

 

[Clefargle]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is free government-built housing incompatible with capitalism?

Click to shrink...

It's not

Yeah, and that's bad. I'm not sure why you would think I thought otherwise. I'm sorry economics doesn't work the way you wish it would.

Click to shrink...

Why is it bad? Cite a source or something. We have spent trillions on healthcare, military adventurism, oil and gas mining, and that money is supposed to "trickle down" to all the poors. But try to allocate a similar amount per year to feed/house everyone and you get insulting snide snipes from those that care more about perpetuating a status quo than solving issues

 

[Clefargle]

Anyone that thinks the US Fed can't just print/cancel hundreds of billions USD at any time should really look up Quantatative Easing:

 

[KHarvey16]

It's not



Why is it bad? Cite a source or something. We have spent trillions on healthcare, military adventurism, oil and gas mining, and that money is supposed to "trickle down" to all the poors. But try to allocate a similar amount per year to feed/house everyone and you get insulting snide snipes from those that care more about perpetuating a status quo than solving issues

Click to shrink...

It's bad because the economy is now doing well. Spending is good when the economy isn't doing well. Printing money in a recession doesn't lead to too much inflation because demand is low. We know this because it's literally what we did in 2008.

Tax cuts at the wrong time that increase the deficit aren't good economically. I'm not making this up, it's literally just Keynes.

Anyone that thinks the US Fed can't just print/cancel hundreds of billions USD at any time should really look up Quantatative Easing:

Click to shrink...

You really aren't paying attention. The economy was terrible.

Hello?

 

[Deleted member 48897]

Is the economy really good if people can't afford their rent though

 

[Pata Hikari]

Is the economy really good if people can't afford their rent though

Click to shrink...

Stocks are going up and CEO's bonuses have never been higher!

 

[KHarvey16]

Is the economy really good if people can't afford their rent though

Click to shrink...

The factors relevant to a discussion about monetary inflation are good.

 

[Cat Party]

the Federal government actually owns the land, they allow people to register parts of it via tax. But stop paying that tax or get in the way of any sufficient infrastructure expansion and you'll find out quick that any "claim" you have to that land is via paying taxes.

Click to shrink...

I know what property taxes and eminent domain are. You don't. That much is obvious from the fact that you think the federal government collects property taxes.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

The factors relevant to a discussion about monetary inflation are good.

Click to shrink...

I mean on the one hand sure but on the other hand this isn't, on its own, an argument against the idea that people need houses more than shareholders need their revenue streams

 

[KHarvey16]

I mean on the one hand sure but on the other hand this isn't, on its own, an argument against the idea that people need houses more than shareholders need their revenue streams

Click to shrink...

Wouldn't suggest it was.

 

[Clefargle]

I know what property taxes and eminent domain are. You don't. That much is obvious from the fact that you think the federal government collects property taxes.

Click to shrink...

I know it's a state tax c'mon. But paying taxes is what grants you the right to it.The state may collect that but they fall under the fed if the land was necessary to them. They could take it and pay you a fair (or not) price for it. Even if you wanted to keep it you couldn't.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

That's personal property, not private property. There's a difference.

Click to shrink...

Same shit to me and everyone in America. I paid for it. I have the deed. I own it. I pay my taxes without fail. Who gets to decide who should have my home? What happens when I say no? Do we get dragged out and sent to re-education camps?

 

[FeliciaFelix]

Landlords and renters alike, what do you think about TICs (Tenancy in Common)

For those unaware, TIC is an arrangement where multiple people own the property with each paying their part of the mortgage and paying into the maintenance fees. Similarly to a rental situation the maintenance itself is normally done by a third party or contractor. The benefit of this arrangement over rentals is that each tenant also paying into their own equity instead of a single owner.

I've seen this in quite a few places. My parents lived in one in NY for a while. The benefit is that it's a cheaper entry level than owning but also the monthly payments go towards your own equity. The best of both worlds of ownership and renting. The challenges are dispute resolution and slightly more friction in implementation than renting.

What if this setup was more often government subsidized? It currently already is with BMR units, down payment assistance programs, and community land trusts.

Click to shrink...

That's not exactly new and you are kinda making it more complicated than it is. Get a bunch of buddies together, pool your money and buy a house.

Community land trusts however are far more elaborate. In those, the trust owns the land under the construction but the person owns the physical house. The trusts controls the land and an individual cannot subdivide their lot. The trust part means it's more elaborate than a typical condo. Its popular in the non profit world, but it's way more elaborate than you buying a house with a few buddies.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

Same shit to me and everyone in America. I paid for it. I have the deed. I own it. I pay my taxes without fail. Who gets to decide who should have my home? What happens when I say no? Do we get dragged out and sent to re-education camps?

Click to shrink...

You just shouldn't be allowed to do that. No one gets dragged off anywhere; in a perfect world you're just not allowed to hoard property and try to make a profit off of it (which no one would need to do anyway because housing and food would be free for everyone).

It is completely against any form of morality to try to make money off of someone's need to have a roof over their head or food on their table.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You just shouldn't be allowed to do that. No one gets dragged off anywhere; in a perfect world you're just not allowed to hoard property and try to make a profit off of it (which no one would need to do anyway because housing and food would be free for everyone).

It is completely against any form of morality to try to make money off of someone's need to have a roof over their head or food on their table.

Click to shrink...

Basic no frills public housing should be available, sure. But if I want more than what our dear leaders will allot me I should just go out and purchase what I want at market value.

It's also immoral to expect people to provide their labor and materials for free.

Taking people's private property en masse is far more immoral. That shit never ends well. It's been tried. Don't want my family being beaten to death in the streets for daring to be successful and having some shit.

 

[Midramble]

That's not exactly new and you are kinda making it more complicated than it is. Get a bunch of buddies together, pool your money and buy a house.

Community land trusts however are far more elaborate. In those, the trust owns the land under the construction but the person owns the physical house. The trusts controls the land and an individual cannot subdivide their lot. The trust part means it's more elaborate than a typical condo. Its popular in the non profit world, but it's way more elaborate than you buying a house with a few buddies.

Click to shrink...

Didn't say it was new, and making what more complicated than it is? Buying a house with your friends is an idea as well. Also aware that community land trusts are different and was going to lead into that with the last sentence of that post in the sense of maybe it would be a good idea to expand these trusts in order to make property ownership more cooperative. Was posting those ideas as replacements for single ownership of multi tenant spaces and asking people's opinion of them.

 

[captive]

One thing that's always ignored in these threads about rent prices is taxes.

Most single family homes I've owned the property taxes would take about 3-4 months worth of rent to pay for. Throw in insurance and your looking at another month or two at best. Now your looking at maybe half a years worth of rent as profit. And that's if the home is paid off. And you hope your tenant doesn't leave, or worse damages the home. If you have a mortgage it's essentially treading water, maybe making you a small profit if you keep a tenant for the whole year.

 

[Clefargle]

It's bad because the economy is now doing well. Spending is good when the economy isn't doing well. Printing money in a recession doesn't lead to too much inflation because demand is low. We know this because it's literally what we did in 2008.

Tax cuts at the wrong time that increase the deficit aren't good economically. I'm not making this up, it's literally just Keynes.



You really aren't paying attention. The economy was terrible.

Hello?

Click to shrink...

QE was done for 6+ years and that isn't even the point. You can inject hundreds of billions into economy at any nearly time and it can be offset by canceling/printing currency. Also, do you think that money vanishes? No, the newly housed people go out and seek employment if they're able bodied, and can spend more of their wages because they aren't serfs of the landlord.

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

Is owning a restaurant or grocery store unethical since you're making people pay for food they need to survive?