I mean yes?

People should be able to own their homes. Renting as be know it is a new phenomenon, rent used to be a pittance, not enough to cover a mortgage. Artificial scarcity and high purchase barriers to entry have twisted it from "gimme a few bucks and you can have a room" to "pay my mortgage and expenses for me and you can live in my property". It's exploitative.

That pizza shop sounds better by the minute.

Its nice to get some love in this thread, it's been surprisingly hostile so far!

Or maybe:

No landlords at all.

This seems to be the concept eluding you. I'm sorry you invested so much into such an unethical business model.

Hoping you choose better with your next venture. I recommend a pizza shop. Everyone loves pizza.

Man, I feel so sorry for you hording all those homes to yourself and having others pay for your wealth with their income.

Must be so hard to sit on a property and passively collect cash. Go get a job.

You speak of pride of ownership. I own my home. I also pay for it with my own income, I don't have others pay for my property for me.

If you didn't require proof of renters insurance (who you can go after in the event a tenant trashes you property, thereby eliminating a judgment-proof tenant), that is your fault. If you could not afford to lower the rent to make your rate of rent competitive when requiring this as a condition, this is again your own fault. If you lacked the resources to afford unforseen expenses related to property ownership and rising interest rates, this is again, your own fault.

Landlords have infinite recourse and ability to mitigate risk. I have been both a renter and property owner, I understand. I could be a landlord, I have the means. I choose not to, because it would be direct participation in an unethical arrangement.

There's nothing to get. Landlord's had enough money to buy ANOTHER house. There's no "woe is me" to be found here. Landlord's chose to make money from someone else paying for the majority of a house that the tenant likely could have afforded to pay for, if artificial, arbitrary barriers to entry were removed.

If you entered into the practice and ended up in a bad financial position as a result of stacking bad investment decisions, it's regrettable you're in that position, but it's entirely of your own making. You chose to engage in a practice that had risk to extract someone else's income as your own wealth.

Nobody holds a gun to a landlord's head to force them into it. You could have taken the thousands upon thousands of dollars and invested them elsewhere, preferably not a practice that makes the real estate market a tiny bit worse for everyone you're ahead of.

I've stated this repeatedly. Nobody is forcing them to continue owning the property.

They may sell at any moment, and eliminate the problem.

They chose to buy into an exploitative business model and are being burned, just a little. If you go bankrupt from your tenant not paying rent, you couldn't afford that property, could you? Walk away, make better choices.

Addendum: those individuals could sell if they're not having fun. One more property on the property market to be owner by the occupant.

Wait wait wait.

I'm just going to suspend my disbelief and answer this assuming 100% honesty on your part.

You're advocating to maintain the system in a way that will impact YOU negatively, correct? You want to maintain the inequality of the current system because... You look at those who have all the economic advantages, and sympathize with their minor setbacks? As opposed to the massive crisis of people who NO LONGER HAVE HOMES as the practice of landlording forces more and more people onto the street?

MAN, your head must be a WILD place to be.

... With a markup of insurance on the purchase price, more expensive interest rates, and strict restraint based on credit score that can be made inaccessible to the average consumer for a multitude of reasons beyond their control. All this to say, a high barrier to entry.

...Man, you're REALLY struggling with the concept huh?

This must be frustrating, you keep trying to land zingers, only to have the rug pulled out from under your argument, repeatedly.

>Lol alright man whatever you say. You obviously don't see the risk even though its screwing individuals over. Keep complaining about the system while nothing will happen because your frustration is directed at the wrong thing. And yeah lets have local governments and NGOs own land, I'm sure you've thoroughly researched market economies to know that would surely work.

I'm saying we should change the system that clearly isn't meeting the needs of society. As in, something new. You need to try to get data.

You seem to advocating for a "got mine, fuck you" approach, afraid to try a different system because it might have some possible negative impact for you, in spite of the fact it could tremendously help others. Which, you're free to do. And I'm free to point out that's selfish as fuck.

Glad to see you've run out of any logical rebuttal though. Because there really isn't one that doesn't make one sound selfish.

>I'm not talking about the banks, I'm talking about individual landlords who take the risk.

You said lender. The landlord is the owner. Man you're on a roll today.

Also, Investment? Risk? My goodness what a combination! No investment has ever had risk before. /s

>You're talking as if landlords are just handed properties out of thin air, they earned their assets.

Incorrect. They earned the DOWN-PAYMENT of that asset.

Then the landlord claimed "FIRST" on the property in question, and arrange to have their tenant pay the remaining balance of the property. Often gaining passive income monthly as a result.

The flaws in such a system are obvious. Assuming the landlord makes 0 profit on either the sale or monthly costs, they are able to purchase assets on a 5 to 1 advantage compared to non-landlords, assuming a down-payment of 20%. 20% five times adds to 100%, you see.

Mix in HELOCs and the fact that land does in fact appreciate over time... It's supremely rigged in favor of those who have existing capital. The landlording of single family homes is right behind oil barrens and war-profiteers in making the world a worse place to their own enrichment.

Even done on a high density scale (low and high rise apartments), it should be much more heavily regulated, and ideally run at a net zero by municipal governments or nonprofit NGOs.

And thereby became wealthy. Just because the initial capital was earner does not change the position they hold.

Owning multiple properties very easily puts someone in the top of wealth. There are wealthier individuals sure, but there are ~10 million Americans that own income property. There are 330 million Americans. That should give you an idea how exclusive an income property is to the wealthy.

>Thats fine and all, except for the assumption that its the tenants house. What about the severe risk you are taking on for the lender? You are not taking that into account at all. The same risk that is now biting them in the ass.

Have you looked at the rate of default on mortgages? It's so laughably small as to be non-existant. We could increase the default rate 10 fold and it would be comically low.

I think the banks will be fine. Their profits might take a negligible hit, but I do not see what giant risk you are worried about.

Now, if you're speaking about the risks being created by massively spiking interest rates, creating risk of mass default, that's a separate issue. TLDR: There are better ways to fight inflation than spiking interest rates.

>"lenders not scrutinizing if the applicants could afford the monthly payments" - that's exactly what you are advocating.

In fact no, that is not what I said. If you re-read my comments you will see I advocate for reducing the barrier to entry by reducing the required principle to enter.

In simple terms, reducing or eliminating the huge down-payment currently required to buy property. Reduce the cash up front to buy from the current ludicrous 20% to something more manageable, like 1% the value of the property. NOT misrepresentation of income. I deliberately state as such. I do not know how to make that clearer to you. > >Picky landlords will not have a problem. There is a huge undersupply of housing in populated areas. I'm sure you bitch about that too but don't understand the economics.

You're making bold assumptions on comprehension after the mistake you JUST made. And the undersupply is driven by the same landlords buying and hoarding property. Vacancy taxes can help address this issue, and force out the non-productive drag on real estate that is the typical mom n pop landlord.

I know this is hard to reconcile with your own perception of self, but if you own a rental income property, you are wealthy. Quite wealthy in fact. Probably the top 1-5% of people. Take a look at the statistics of average wealth and income from national census data. You may surprise yourself.

Consider, if you sold your property tomorrow, how would your equity VS liability balance out?

In 5 years?

In 10 years?

We both know the longer thing go on, the better that picture looks. And you always have the escape hatch to pull to sell and recover any shortfall of cash. Comparing your position to that of your tenants are completely different worlds.

The mortgage crisis of 2008 was caused by a bunch of idiots trading mortgages blindly, and lenders not scrutinizing if the applicants could afford the monthly payments (or actively giving loans they knew were unaffordable, because in the short term they could be traded publically for a quick buck).

Then when a few mortgage holders defaulted, it became a made scramble of those same investors to prevent losses as a result of their stupid lending practices, resulting in a flurry of foreclosures and general bullshit that devastated the economy.

It had VERY little to do with allowing people favorable buying terms, and everything to do with intentionally setting up people to fail for a quick buck.

Your first two items lead directly to your third. Landlords who are that picky are going to find no tenants. And will be forced to sell. Not sure what your point is?

>Why would you put the responsibility on the landlord to sell their home rather than the system that sets it up this way? How do you know landlords dont work also? You do realize that rental properties barely make an income stream until they're fully paid off right? You most likely don't have any experience with landlords or properties and are going off the typical reddit landlords are bad circlejerk

You mean the responsibility to sell someone else's home, right? They don't rent to themselves.

You'd also be incorrect. I have rented. I currently own. I've seen the vast difference in opportunity in each. The fact that you can park money on a property (that you don't need), and it makes a little bit of money for 25 years, and then heaps of money afterwards, and can be sold at any time for a huge cash infusion, is monumentally better position than a tenant, who gets to pay all of the operating costs and has 0 to show for it in the end.

Consider this. You as a landlord buy a property for x. Your are a good landlord, and your tenant pays rent exactly equal to the upkeep of your property, 0 profit monthly for you as landlord, for 5 years. You then decide you want a better property, and sell, for probably 1.3x. You make lots of money. Tenant has 0 and continues to rent.

If that tenant had been allowed to buy that exact same property, and paid the same monthly rate to cover the same costs of ownership directly, after 5 years they'd have ~0.15x in equity. Which beats the snot out of 0.

If they sell off in that jurisdiction en mass, the value of property will decrease and will lower the barrier to entry for homeowners, who can just buy instead of renting.

Few rent by choice. Most rent by necessity. And before you counter with arguments of how "oh they won't be able to afford x", consider that landlords fund the property with the rent they collect. Any barrier to ownership is an artificial one created by lending practices, which could be easily circumvented by legislation forcing lenders to allow low-principle mortgages. Not unsustainable or unqualified, merely low barrier-to-entry.

Sounds like a win-win all around.

They have an asset with worth in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

They can sell and get real jobs, rather then put down a fraction of a property's cost and have someone pay it off for them on an asset that typically appreciates greatly over time.

Let's just hope they come to the conclusion "this is a terrible practice, let's stop".

Landlords by default own multiple properties. As in, more than is required to survive.

An excess, even.

Sounds a lot like wealth to me.

Won't someone consider the wealthy, insured landlords!?

This violin is oversized.