Are landlords inherently unethical?

[cubanb]

You people do know that they usually require 20% down and if you don't provide that the monthly payment for buying is way higher, right? If you make $40K a year and want to buy a place renting for $1500, it's gonna require 10s of thousands of dollars down just to get that payment. Then when you sell it costs you 6% of the sale price which can also be 10s of thousands of dollars.

 

[Rory]

Human necessities should not be privately held in a way which deprives people of those necessities. Shelter is a basic human need.


A system which allows landlords to exist is unethical. People acting as landlords within that system are behaving unethically.

There are no "good" landlords. They all exploit their ownership of a basic human necessity to enrich themselves.

Click to shrink...

That's not true.

Our old landlady was very humble living.The house is located in one of the city's best locations. I paid barely more than 3,64 Euro/qm. And the flat is more up to date than the avarage American one at that. Currently we rent a second flat in the building with a total cost of 6,20 Euro/qm. Surrounding landlords ask for an avarage between 10-15 Euro/qm.

In the past we never paid money for water, trash being picked up or any other additional costs. That was all included in the rent. (Now we pay 50 Euro of the rent for trash etc. but water is still not calculated).

The landlady used to manage this house on a +/- 0 base. She did not try to gain any profit. In 60 years, there had been one raise in rent regarding extra cost, and many people living here luved there for 50+ years — happily.

To be capable to hold 100qm flats even post retirement and/or passing of your other half — for everyone in this house it would be more expensive to move away into a smaller flat than stick with their current one — that's remarkable.

 

[KHarvey16]

Tell me how someone spending a large chunk of their net monthly pay is good? Let's say you're rent is $1500. Not quite outlandish. Let's say you make 40k a year after deductions. Not quite outlandish. How do they benefit from renting?

Click to shrink...

Taking that down payment and investing it? Making more money, more safely, in savings than equity in the house that may or may not increase in value? Not having to pay taxes or replace a $20k roof? Flexibility to move when you want for relatively little cost?

Err, I mean...these are impossible questions! You just want to be convinced!

 

[DSP]

the other benefit of renting is that you're not tied down to some building.The ideal job isn't going to pop on your next door, you have to go to it. Having that freedom was great for me. After you buy, you don't want to move, there is a lot more friction.

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

Yes? If you're destroying food when 9 million people per year die of starvation, yeah that's unethical. How difficult would it be to call a local charity or advocacy group and say "Hey, I have a bunch of food here that hasn't sold that will go to waste. Would anyone like to come pick it up?"

Click to shrink...

You're generalizing massive groups of people. That's the point. This idea that you can put a large population in the same bucket because these issues exist is just ridiculous.

Do people think most landlords actually own their property? In most cases that shits owned by the bank and the landlord is hundreds of thousands dollars in debt paying it back. If they aren't living in that property, how are they paying the mortgage AND paying for their own habitation if they don't rent it out?

I suppose they could sell it...so someone rich can buy it and kick out those who rent, further restricting the housing market for renters.

"They should live there."

Maybe they did. Maybe it was a starter home and they needed to expand when the family grew. Maybe they got a new job and had to relocate. Hell, maybe they do live there and are renting out a subunit because they can't afford the mortgage without it.

We live in a world of moral relativism. This whole idea that everything has to be absolute is a rejection of that reality.

That doesn't mean we can't make it better, but focusing anger towards anyone we perceive to be "better off" than us ain't it. That shit should be directed towards those who are actually fucking us over.

 

[subpar spatula]

Because the cost of buying in many cases actually ends up being higher than renting when you factor the difference in cost, the need to save for a down payment, the interest rate, the property tax and the cost of maintenance and if you take the money that would have went to actually buying and invest it, you'll end up with a better return over time compared to what you gain from buying. There's way more involved than the simple sticker price of the house when it comes to what it costs you.This makes more sense for someone who actually isn't as financially well off and a better way to utilize their money. The fact that you don't know this tells me that you aren't well versed in the pros and cons of renting and buying and that you're not at all well aware of the fact that yes people do in fact choose to rent over buying for good reason and it's not the people who are rich.

Click to shrink...

A lot of what you're saying isn't a reason people choose not to buy, it's because they cannot do that. A lot of new properties (especially around my area) require ridiculous deposits within the first 12 months, usually ranging up to 25% of the property cost which can be up to about $150k. It's not actually because people don't want to part with it, it's just not affordable for most people. Believe it or not but a lot of people are priced out of buying and have to rent. I suspect you have data to support the idea that people forego buying because they don't want to part with the larger sum of money?

 

[Deleted member 25600]

You're generalizing massive groups of people. That's the point. This idea that you can put a large population in the same bucket because these issues exist is just ridiculous.

Do people think most landlords actually own their property? In most cases that shits owned by the bank and the landlord is hundreds of thousands dollars in debt paying it back. If they aren't living in that property, how are they paying the mortgage AND paying for their own habitation if they don't rent it out?

I suppose they could sell it...so someone rich can buy it and kick out those who rent, further restricting the housing market for renters.

"They should live there."

Maybe they did. Maybe it was a starter home and they needed to expand when the family grew. Maybe they got a new job and had to relocate. Hell, maybe they do live there and are renting out a subunit because they can't afford the mortgage without it.

We live in a world of moral relativism. This whole idea that everything has to be absolute is a rejection of that reality.

That doesn't mean we can't make it better, but focusing anger towards anyone we perceive to be "better off" than us ain't it. That shit should be directed towards those who are actually fucking us over.

Click to shrink...

Whatever the situation of these landlords is irrelevant. The question you should be asking is "Is it ethical to commodify a human right? To restrict access to it unless one can afford it?"

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

Whatever the situation of these landlords is irrelevant. The question you should be asking is "Is it ethical to commodify a human right? To restrict access to it unless one can afford it?"

Click to shrink...

Housing not being a human right has fuck all to do with landlords.

 

[alexiswrite]

Whatever the situation of these landlords is irrelevant. The question you should be asking is "Is it ethical to commodify a human right? To restrict access to it unless one can afford it?"

Click to shrink...

No, but Landlords don't do that. We, as a society, do that. To further illustrate, it's very easy for me to imagine societies where landlords exist and yet people's access to any form of shelter is not dependant on if they can afford it.

 

[Deleted member 25600]

Housing not being a human right has fuck all to do with landlords.

Click to shrink...

Do landlords not expressly charge for access to shelter? Is shelter not a basic need for human survival...a human right, if you will?
So is it ethical to require payment for access to shelter? I argue that it is not ethical. Therefore I argue that landlords are inherently unethical.

No, but Landlords don't do that. We, as a society, do that. To further illustrate, it's very easy for me to imagine societies where landlords exist and yet people's access to any form of shelter is not dependant on if they can afford it.

Click to shrink...

You're right. So maybe it would be more ethical if we, as a society, started to decommodify these things we call human rights, but don't treat as such.

 

[higemaru]

I've had good landlords and bad landlords. My last landlord was super nice; cut the grass for us (and paid us to do it + let us borrow his tools when he got back surgery and couldn't), forgot to charge us our water bill and didn't ask for it for nearly our entire lease, fixed the dishwasher & kitchen island without charge (he just wants to redo the whole kitchen but is doing it piecemeal), didn't charge me for losing my key and not being able to turn it in, would give us 48 hours notice if he was going to be on the property, and he used the rent money to help pay for his daughter's MS treatments. His only thing was that he would get genuinely mad if we took a fire alarm down or moved the fire extinguisher from its spot across from the stove, but like, I get that, I wouldn't want my property burning down and my tenants burning to death either.

and like, idk how to find a new dishwasher and I don't wanna cut the grass so I appreciate that he did that for us. So I think a good landlord is a possibility and helps to take away some of the burden of living independently. But most landlords aren't like him, like my current landlords who are super hands-off but are unreliable and not very accommodating + have sneaky clauses built into the leasing agreement.

Housing is a human right, but I don't necessarily think that a broader conceptualization of a landlord interferes with that, I just think their job should be combined with that of maintenance man, that way they're providing you with a service instead of just charging you to live under a roof. And if they fail at their maintenance duties, then yeah, the tenants should absolutely have the power to oust their landlord because they aren't lording over their land properly. I imagine if housing were a guaranteed right and the government provided it unilaterally, we would still have a landlord equivalent.

 

[Clefargle]

Hate to be this guy but the government got paid back every dime they gave to the banks during the financial crisis.

Click to shrink...

and that's not even remotely the point. The point is it can be done when we decide to do it. Spending money on housing would also stimulate the economy due to people being able to spend what they previously had thrown away on rent

 

[NineConsonants]

That doesn't happen in real life? I once had to wait a whole year for a working oven in one place I lived.

Click to shrink...

My new place had the bathrooms renovated and the oven replaced because I pointed out issues to the landlord.

 

[ninnanuam]

I've been reading through the thread off and on all day. The initial question was:

Are landlords inherently unethical.

That question has been completely set aside by off topic ideas about property, economic theory, piss poor attacks.

Since numerous landlords including myself have chimed in giving reason above and beyond profit (which again may not be inherently unethical, but setting that whole question aside) as a reason for renting a property out it would seem to show that it is not inherently unethical.

To answer other questions, yes everyone deserves shelter and it should not be left up to landlords to supply housing. I would love my mum to be able to move into free housing, rather than the arrangement we have in place. But it works for us and i take offence that someone would claim I am rent seeking off my mum

My proposal is thus:

A base level of free communal housing on the outskirts of major metro areas, possibly mass domitories, or barracks for those who choose not to spend their money on rent. One day a month they are assigned clean up/work detail. Your expenses are your own however

Then those struggling with rent who are incapable or old or with disability should get subsidied housing in the neighbourhood in which they already reside. A portion of their pension or benefits should be automatically deducted from to pay for managemrnt or upkeep or they have the option of the free shelter like everyone else.

Third there should be a help for low income families to purchase their first property possibly with a joint equity scheme with the gov.

Lastly all new appt, condo construction, and large housing developments should include some percentage toward subsidised housing and joint equity schemes in all neighbourhoods.

Those are the reasonable solutions I can see, it's a mix of things I've seen tried in a bunch of places (apart from the barracks concept).

 

[Panic Freak]

and that's not even remotely the point. The point is it can be done when we decide to do it. Spending money on housing would also stimulate the economy due to people being able to spend what they previously had thrown away on rent

Click to shrink...

The Government would have to implement a VAT tax to get any sort of payback though. Incomes that fall to the land lords would be offset by increased incomes elsewhere (maybe) which would leave the Government with similar levels of income tax (maybe). That's a pretty major difference.

 

[Clefargle]

The Government would have to implement a VAT tax to get any sort of payback though. Incomes that fall to the land lords would be offset by increased incomes elsewhere (maybe) which would leave the Government with similar levels of income tax (maybe). That's a pretty major difference.

Click to shrink...

not true, people spending money that would have normally gone to rent would increase tax revenue through normal sales tax

 

[Panic Freak]

not true, people spending money that would have normally gone to rent would increase tax revenue through normal sales tax

Click to shrink...

Depends on the jurisdiction. Neither the US government nor Oregon has a sales tax for instance.

 

[LGHT_TRSN]

Do landlords not expressly charge for access to shelter? Is shelter not a basic need for human survival...a human right, if you will?
So is it ethical to require payment for access to shelter? I argue that it is not ethical. Therefore I argue that landlords are inherently unethical.

Click to shrink...

This is garbage moral absolutism completely detached from reality. By that same logic serving at a restaurant is unethical because a server won't pay for your meal out of their own pocket if you're hungry. A hotel front desk clerk is unethical because they won't pay for your hotel room out of their own pocket if you need shelter.

You're placing the moral responsibility on those who merely participate in the system they are forced to participate in.

Tell me, who is doing more relative moral good in a community: a landlord who increases the amount of low income housing in a neighborhood, or a keyboard warrior arguing those landlords are unethical?

 

[Torpedo Vegas]

Last landlord I had before I bought a house were great. Didn't raise the rent in 12 years, kept things repaired, let me pay the rent half at the beginning of the month and half on the 15th. Never showed up unannounced, never asked me to do any repairs myself.

I kind of miss them.

 

[Deleted member 8463]

My new place had the bathrooms renovated and the oven replaced because I pointed out issues to the landlord.

Click to shrink...

My boiler is broken and I've been waiting 2 years for my landlord to replace it.

 

[StriderHiryu]

I'm fortunate enough to be a landlord. It's interesting to read this thread and I would say that in an ideal world, the concept of being a landlord is somewhat unethical. I'm a second generation immigrant and lived in a crappy flat as a kid it's only been from working my ass off over a 15 year period and getting lucky that I was able to get into a position where I could buy property. When I was a kid, I was part of a family that could not afford their own property so had to rent, and now 30 years later it's me doing the same thing to others.

But the thing is the capitalist system has certain rules to it and if you "play the game" it will pay off for you. Owning properties means generating a passive income, which means a better life for you and your own family. Because of my investments I was able to pay off the mortgage on my mother's family home, and give up my job and start my own company, as I can rely on some passive income to get over the initial hump of having very little whilst I try and get my business off the ground.

I feel like in my own case, being able to rent allowed me to live in a big city like London and that gave me the chance to make a good life for myself. Something only possible with the landlord system or with more public housing. As a result I hope that the people I rent to are also able to do the same over time. However, my fear is that the gap between classes is becoming too extreme and already it's almost impossible for young people to buy their own property without assistance from their parents. This is a terrible outcome as it will mean that the world essentially becomes divided into two, those that can afford to live in their own property and those that can't and it's why I fear the consequences of a Conservative party victory in the upcoming election. The gap will only widen and upward mobility through classes will become much harder, if not impossible.

I don't really know the answer and I do feel some guilt into being complicit in this current situation continuing to perpetuate itself. But at the same time not doing it would result in a worse life for my own family. And that I guess is the danger of Capitalism in general.

 

[mutantmagnet]

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...

You're acting like all that money goes to the landlord. The government has many schemes to extract wealth from land regardless of who is paying them for it.

Sometimes the more I learn about various regulations it gives me pause on home ownership.

 

[mutantmagnet]

Hate to be this guy but the government got paid back every dime they gave to the banks during the financial crisis.

Click to shrink...

What were the penalties if they didn't pay it back?

 

[Mankoto]

No, I don't think they're unethical. But I've heard some pretty vile shit from some landlords.

Such as not doing lease agreements because it "benefits them and not me". Making everyone pay month to month and knocking on their doors whenever they want demanding what they think the person owed and if they don't have it then, the eviction process starts.

Another one told me they raised prices by an extra $900 when they bought an apartment to kick out "undesirables".

Personally my landlords have been okay. They've never bothered me and they always gave a week's notice of an inspection date if one needed to be done. But, some people are just inherently shitty people and give them some power and you'll see how shitty they can really be...

 

[benshapirohamburger]

No. Some landlords are shitty but there are landlords who realize that they should provide good service because it's their own property.

 

[Prax]

Finally finished reading the whoooole thread lol.

I'm going to say it's only intrinsically unethical insofar as being alive, needing to consume, needing power structures or some form of heirarchy to feel secure, feeling entitled to things like meaning and purpose, and pursuing and participating in those avenues to maintain one's existence is unethical.

Considering we are not merely energy beings made of pure thought and intent, we're going to be participating in unsavoury practices and systems in hopes of prolonging our lives or at least momentary desires.

I think for the most part, being a landlord is fine, but acting as a good steward of the power you wield and responsibility you hold can be tricky.

 

[Tawpgun]

People calling for the abolishment of private property are insane.

Just a completely unrealistic and naive view of the world that completely ignores human nature.

 

[Deleted member 25600]

This is garbage moral absolutism completely detached from reality. By that same logic serving at a restaurant is unethical because a server won't pay for your meal out of their own pocket if you're hungry. A hotel front desk clerk is unethical because they won't pay for your hotel room out of their own pocket if you need shelter.

You're placing the moral responsibility on those who merely participate in the system they are forced to participate in.

Tell me, who is doing more relative moral good in a community: a landlord who increases the amount of low income housing in a neighborhood, or a keyboard warrior arguing those landlords are unethical?

Click to shrink...

There's a reason we leftists say "There is no ethical consumption under Capitalism". It's because there isn't. We leftists engage in unethical behaviour because we are all trapped in the same unethical system.
The title of the thread isn't "Are the actions of landlords justified given their own individual contexts".

 

[Spinluck]

People calling for the abolishment of private property are insane.

Just a completely unrealistic and naive view of the world that completely ignores human nature.

Click to shrink...

The "do you give money to homeless people" threads say as much.

This thread is bonkers.

 

[Tuorom]

I don't think landlords are unethical. Just like how grocery stores are not unethical, and hydro services are not unethical.

They are providing a service, being the middle man so to speak. You are paying a landlord to use a functioning home, and they to maintain the property while you stay there. You are paying a grocery store (and by extension the farmers) for the ease of access to food. You are paying hydro services for the ease of access to clean water.

It would be nice to have free food, water, and shelter. It would be nice.....

 

[DerpHause]

Whatever the situation of these landlords is irrelevant. The question you should be asking is "Is it ethical to commodify a human right? To restrict access to it unless one can afford it?"

Click to shrink...

So long as there is a cost to produce the things humans need, it has to be commodified on some level I would think.

 

[Tawpgun]

There's a reason we leftists say "There is no ethical consumption under Capitalism". It's because there isn't. We leftists engage in unethical behaviour because we are all trapped in the same unethical system.
The title of the thread isn't "Are the actions of landlords justified given their own individual contexts".

Click to shrink...

I tried asking this question before but didn't get an answer.

All I hear is capitalism bad but never solutions. I am very much on the left but I understand that realistically there needs to be a form of capitalism to exist. We definitely need to socialize more things but to abolish private property sounds insane. What is the solution? Government chooses who gets to live where?

 

[WascallyWabbit]

I tried asking this question before but didn't get an answer.

All I hear is capitalism bad but never solutions. I am very much on the left but I understand that realistically there needs to be a form of capitalism to exist. We definitely need to socialize more things but to abolish private property sounds insane. What is the solution? Government chooses who gets to live where?

Click to shrink...

Can you imagine if Ben fucking Carson was in charge of housing...

 

[Deleted member 25600]

I tried asking this question before but didn't get an answer.

All I hear is capitalism bad but never solutions. I am very much on the left but I understand that realistically there needs to be a form of capitalism to exist. We definitely need to socialize more things but to abolish private property sounds insane. What is the solution? Government chooses who gets to live where?

Click to shrink...

There's been a few suggested solutions in this thread. The Singapore Model could be a good starting point. From there rather than "selling" houses on 99 year leases, you could have the houses just be allocated by a local authority based on need and want. If circumstances change, you could apply for a new dwelling to accomodate the change. Say you are a family of 3 in a 3 bedroom house, but you have another child. You could apply to the local authority to move into a 4 bedroom house or apartment. having this framework in place doesn't eliminate the ability to just build or buy a more desirable house if one chooses.

Also; keep in mind that when Leftists talk about private property, they're usually not talking about personal property. The house that you've purchased and live in is personal property. A house that you purchase as an investment to rent out is private property. An additional house that you purchase as a holiday home but don't rent out is a grey area. Whether that is considered personal or private property depends on who you're talking to and what their vein of Socialism is. I'd consider it personal property. If everybody already has access to adequate housing, I don't think there would be an issue with owning 2 homes for personal use.

 

[Tawpgun]

There's been a few suggested solutions in this thread. The Singapore Model could be a good starting point. From there rather than "selling" houses on 99 year leases, you could have the houses just be allocated by a local authority based on need and want. If circumstances change, you could apply for a new dwelling to accomodate the change. Say you are a family of 3 in a 3 bedroom house, but you have another child. You could apply to the local authority to move into a 4 bedroom house or apartment. having this framework in place doesn't eliminate the ability to just build or buy a more desirable house if one chooses.

Also; keep in mind that when Leftists talk about private property, they're usually not talking about personal property. The house that you've purchased and live in is personal property. A house that you purchase as an investment to rent out is private property. An additional house that you purchase as a holiday home but don't rent out is a grey area. Whether that is considered personal or private property depends on who you're talking to and what their vein of Socialism is. I'd consider it personal property. If everybody already has access to adequate housing, I don't think there would be an issue with owning 2 homes for personal use.

Click to shrink...

Correct me if I'm wrong but that just seems like a more expanded version of section 8 housing?

Which I am all for.

It is frustrating to see new construction in cities and when you look at what the finished product is going to look like its like this glass and metal luxury building with a fun lobby with a pool table and grills on the rooftop deck/patio area.

We need more "projects' and less of those.

 

[Deleted member 25600]

Correct me if I'm wrong but that just seems like a more expanded version of section 8 housing?

Which I am all for.

It is frustrating to see new construction in cities and when you look at what the finished product is going to look like its like this glass and metal luxury building with a fun lobby with a pool table and grills on the rooftop deck/patio area.

We need more "projects' and less of those.

Click to shrink...

I am unfamiliar with Section 8 housing, but I guess so?

 

[Deleted member 2226]

Correct me if I'm wrong but that just seems like a more expanded version of section 8 housing?

Which I am all for.

It is frustrating to see new construction in cities and when you look at what the finished product is going to look like its like this glass and metal luxury building with a fun lobby with a pool table and grills on the rooftop deck/patio area.

We need more "projects' and less of those.

Click to shrink...

People are going to target the high end because that's where the money is, especially when zoning and regulations make it extremely time-consuming and expensive to build anything. If cities were building adequate numbers of new construction, this wouldn't matter because of depreciation. Most of what's "affordable housing" in New York City that's not public housing was never intended as affordable housing when it was built. They just built new luxury buildings and all the trendy people went to the new desirable stuff, and the old stock dropped in price.

 

[travisbickle]

So long as there is a cost to produce the things humans need, it has to be commodified on some level I would think.

Click to shrink...

And what's the cost on the human soul every time you walk around a city with homeless people sleeping on the streets and begging in alleyways?

Commodities and the market are not good at providing for the human experience. Houses provide dignity for all not profit for a few.

 

[DerpHause]

And what's the cost on the human soul every time you walk around a city with homeless people sleeping on the streets and begging in alleyways?

Click to shrink...

Certainly not enough to abandon the reality in which I live and join them over vain and ineffectual principle.

Fact of the matter is things that aren't free to produce won't be intrinsically free to obtain no matter how needed they may be.

 

[Tawpgun]

There is a housing crisis in the US because property to live in is treated as a money making investment. This is one reason.

The other reason is that like others have said, zoning laws and building regulations make it incredibly time consuming and costly to build. We need to de-regulate to an extent and take back control over city planning from private interests. Private interests being real estate develops and NIMBY homeowners.

Japan/Tokyo actually solved all this.

What Housing Crisis? In Japan, Home Prices Stay Flat

Over the past two decades, home prices in some leading U.S. and European cities have skyrocketed. In Tokyo, they are going nowhere.

www.wsj.com

It seems like the perfect solution. But it will have tough time getting traction in the US because making money off of real estate is an INCREDIBLY american thing. You are taught the best way to build wealth is to be a homeowner. If you are a homeowner you will do anything you can preserve your property value or raise it. Someone building a bunch of apartments in your neighborhood, god forbid it be public/low income, you will gather your local homeowners and protest. And because city planning is largely done by city officials the locals elect, it is very hard to get anything to change.

The right is correct in that housing is a supply and demand issue and we need to de-regulate.

But it can't be a solely free market solution. You need governments to make big changes in zoning and you need government to alot a certain number of low income apartments/homes.