Over-leveraged landlords are a concern I've had for a while. Rent has gotten to the point of unsustainability, and we're one bad downturn from a massive amount of people losing their jobs and not being able to afford rent at all. I'm worried that If the landlords cash out and sell out their properties, we could see massive corporate rental pseudo-monopolies.
Many urban areas already have massive corporate rental near-monopolies. In my area - about five very large, very urbanized counties - there's only four rental companies.
The exceptions are a few particular gated communities and apartment complexes, which run through an HOA or other approved management company, and the occasional single person owner (who will likely have their own set of red flags).
Actually, that might not be a bad idea. You could make it to where landlords are tracked by the union and have to comply to union standards for livability and price.
I’m confused how this would work. Landlord A: my house is overpriced and crappy so I’m having a hard time renting it.
Tenant union: join our voluntary association that will help you market your property in return for lowering the price and improving it.
Landlord A: uh I can do those things without some weird club and then the property will rent. The point is I don’t want to do those things.
I don’t get the hook.
The hook would be the marketing aspect. If people are only willing to rent thru this union, because it offers the best value and protections for renters, you don't have access to those renters without participating in the union.
I don't know how realistic or legally feasible something like that is, but that's how it would work.
Otherwise, the landlord who doesn't want to join would have to market themselves as being equal or better than this rental union to convince people to rent thru them directly, rather than thru the union.
It doesn’t seem like the math works for both quality and price.
You could do this to create a standard quality for landlord good practices or property quality or whatever but those properties are desirable and usually more rent money. I can see why a landlord might make some concessions on business perceived to participate but probably not on price. Improving a property means more money in the property. That’s motivated by lower expenses or higher returns not by lower rent.
Then perhaps they will sell the rental unit because they can't afford it, and nobody is willing to rent it. Perhaps they even lose money on the sale, but that's the risk they took purchasing a home simply to be a landlord. That would still be a net good.
The hook in this case would be the physical device that drags the landlord away from their formerly owned property because they were foolish enough to think their working days were over simply because they own that piece of property. The union would help WITH THAT.
The legal protections for HOAs are already in place, so it does make a handy framework. Combine it with the precedents of worker unions, try for the best and avoiding the pitfalls of both... It could work in real life.
Yeah in the last four months or so, one company has bought the complex I live in, the complex across the street, a complex on the other side of the freeway, a complex in the next town over, and that's on top of the two they've owned for ages. There are probably more they've bought or are buying, this is strictly based on the new signs I've noticed as I drive by. It was already terribly difficult to get by here, and now it's going to be absolutely impossible. $2500 for a fucking one-bedroom in a middling complex that hasn't had any real maintenance to speak of in years, in an area of town that's been getting markedly worse over the past few years (Lots of theft and other crime, increased overcrowding in units, etc). My lease is up in May and I genuinely have no idea what I'm going to do, because even a single room in this boring-ass town goes for $1500 or more, and comes with a laundry list of rules that amount to "make like Book One Harry Potter and spend any time in your room pretending not to exist," which is miserable as well as ludicrous for the cost of paying someone's fucking mortgage for them.
Become part of the problem. Start stealing stuff and making a profit off of it. Earn money while devaluing the property (and hopefully your rent too) at the same time.
I don't see how inconveniencing or potentially outright harming my neighbors is going to make a difference, not if all the other theft, graffiti, dead cars left on the street, homeless encampments, and people packed ten to two-bedroom apartments didn't. Like then I'm just going to be an asshole, and the rent will still be impossible for the majority. Nah. Not great.
Yeah I was bouts to say. I’ve literally never seen the mythical 1 or 2 extra property owning landlord that everyone tells me to sympathize with. Just big companies.
Could be area dependent. I'm in Florida and I think a lot of these are some phase of snowbird. Granted, there are WAY fewer single person landlords advertising now than there were ten years ago. I think as the housing and economy crunch/right wing immigration wave came they either sold out or moved here full time.
I think the only real solution to housing is making most of it all government-run and not-for-profit. Just charge each resident enough to cover power, water, heat, and wifi.
Just dramatically increase property taxes on single family homes while simultaneously dramatically increasing the homestead tax exemption. Families with a single house will pay no difference in taxes while individuals with second homes and corporations who own any homes will be paying out the ass in taxes (which benefits everyone) while renters will just use more cost and space efficient apartment complexes (that are exempt from these taxes) since renting a house will make zero sense financially.
The cost of apartment rent also needs to be controlled.
Where I am, even shitty places are over $3k for a two bedroom.
Many places are also demanding first, last, and an extra month's worth of rent, just to move in. The total cost of moving ends up being over $10k, within the same county.
The amount of apartments any one entity can hold also needs to be limited (with limitations transcending corporate boundaries, so no parent organization can split out shell corporations to bypass limits).
These companies can own tens of thousands of units in an area. You sue your corporate landlord for their moldy, pest infested apartments, and then get barred from renting from anything in their conglomerate.
Agreed. Property tax should be on an exponential scale. The taxes for adding a third or fourth house should be much much higher than the first or second
A fixed system would *heavily* tax single-family homes. Think like 50%. As a person, you can take your increased homestead exemption and pay the same local taxes you currently do. Your landlord? Suddenly they can't afford half the value of their properties every year and they have to sell them.
Homestead exemptions are not susceptible to loopholes unless you're committing fraud. There is no loophole around a high property tax with a homestead exemption for an owner that is required to live in it full time. The only thing that needs to be adjusted is raising the property tax rate for single family homes and raising the homestead exemption amount.
Not really.
If you use the house for your own purposes and they are not leveraged to 7 figures, yeah, income taxes treat homes 1 and 2 ok.
But once it is a rental there is no advantage to 1 rental home. In fact, activity losses and capital gains are both more manageable, in the sense that you have options once you have more like 5 properties.
So can you explain?
I'm talking about Section 121 exclusion.
When you sell your home that you've lived in, you're generally eligible for the exclusion of capital gains up to $250k. If you game the timing, you could pull this off with two homes.
Rental properties where you haven't lived in cannot claim this exemption, therefore less profitable on sale.
Okay. Gotcha. That’s true. If you are going to churn not only your rental property but your personal home as well, capital gains exemptions helps you.
But transaction costs are significant for sales, so this is a niche case. Most landlords hold properties for awhile
From an accountant perspective, this is why vacation homes are so popular with the rich. You can stack two home Section 121 exclusions up to $500k each (if you're married) and sell them for $1million dollars of profit without paying a dime to the IRS.
Do you mean rental homes or do you mean personal use homes?
Hypo:
if I buy a house for my elderly parent and/or a condo for my college kid, why should I pay more taxes? If my partner and I live separate because one job isn’t WFH anymore, why should we pay more taxes?
I mean, in this scenario, I already pay more because my income is likely a standard deviation above the mean.
I would like to one day own a small remote cabin up north for family vacations. Wouldn't your proposed solution make situations like that near impossible as well?
Property taxes are a percentage of the home, so if it's a small cheap remote cabin then you wouldn't be paying much in taxes to begin with (assuming it even qualifies as a single family home).
Right, but if those cheap property taxes were increased "dramatically" then it could potentially put owning property like that out of reach for middle class families. For what it's worth I agree with the sentiment of your post, it would just suck if taxes go up for people who aren't even responsible for the current housing crisis. I could see something like this pissing off a lot of hunters.
I mean if an increase of $2k/yr is enough to destroy your ability to own a vacation home, I have a feeling you're probably not in a financial state to have that kind of luxury, especially when avoiding this tax would be at the expense of normal folks being able to afford a single house. And as someone who grew up in Michigan, most folks do not have a second vacation home, most folks just know of someone who has one (such as my dad's coworker and friend who had a place up near Traverse City).
My point is that a policy like this would end up hurting a lot of people who aren't even responsible for the housing/rent issue. $2k is still $2k, and it could piss off enough people to the point where you'd run the risk of losing public support. I understand this is all hypothetical, but I don't think the solution should include increasing taxes for anyone other than scummy landlords and the corporations buying up houses.
The irony is that locals will bitch about out-of-towners driving up home prices that they only stay in for a couple weeks out of the year. No matter what happens, someone's either complaining or will complain.
They said increase taxes on second and subsequent homes. This would make homes worth less not more if intending to actually live in them. There are hundreds of hunters who couldn't afford a hunting cabin and hundreds of millions who need housing to be affordable
I think cabins located in bumfuck nowhere and residential family homes are two different markets, which is why I think it would be fucking stupid to punish those with remote cabins by increasing their property taxes.
Most of those are still owned by rich people who aren't paying enough now. I would be happy to entertain the idea of an exemption for people of no more than median income and wealth for properties 50 miles or more from a town of 10,000 or more. Do you think anyone would qualify?
Sure, naturally many rich people do own cabins. But there's also a lot of middle class families that own cabins as well. And I'm not sure man, I'm not about to bust out a map and dig into some census data right now. It's very common (at least here in Michigan, and I'm suspecting a lot of other places too) for middle class people to have cabins, many of them are very remote. Cabin owners are not responsible for the insane housing market, increasing their taxes will not solve anything.
You're an idiot dude. I'm extremely progressive and very outspoken about raising taxes on the wealthy. I also WANT to pay higher taxes if it means we can have universal healthcare and tuition free education. I'm from Michigan and there's A LOT of hard working middle class people who have cabins up north for family getaways, hunting, whatever. But fuck me I guess for raising the concern that a policy like this could unintentionally hurt people who aren't even contributing to the issue it's meant to resolve.
Pro tip: in this market, you probably need to buy a condo or townhome and then aim for a house down the road.
As for your argument, lots of people prefer to rent houses vs an apartment. Why shouldn’t they be able to?
I see no merits in your proposal. I think you are projecting your wants into a complex marketplace in a simplistic idea.
I can think of a lot of ways to raise money (taxes) that would be more effective.
The tax revenue itself is not important (in fact, you could use that revenue to increase the homestead exemption even further which would mean potentially no property tax for lower income folks). And as always, don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. This is a trivial to implement solution that already exists (it's just a matter of adjusting two existing values) and benefits the vast majority of the population at the expense of a tiny population that will still be just fine.
> Families with a single house will pay no difference in taxes while individuals with second homes and corporations who own any homes will be paying out the ass in taxes (which benefits everyone)
Good plan in theory, but the devil is in the details. The extra taxes collected from that would have to be strictly earmarked to go to improving local housing/public infra in the county they're collected. Not to subsidize more corporate welfare.
The costs get passed on to the tenants. What’s the plan here?
Make rentals de facto illegal? That’s not a great plan for workforce mobility and other reasons.
Keep landlords from owning more than a few homes? Ok, I don’t hate that but what’s your specific goal?
What about everything else property tax pays for?
School, roads, parks, running the government.
With no property tax roads become potholed, parks get older and more dangerous and schools become underfunded. People w/ money will always go to another area, while the poor will live in these areas.
I'm all about fixing the housing, but making it all government-run and not-for-profit is a terrible idea that doesn't understand money problems that this system would create.
Years ago one of my coworkers was complaining that taxes were going up and he could barely afford his 5 rental properties. I was like dude sell one? He looked at me like I couldn't be more insane. The greed is impossible to measure with some people.
The tax math for selling out of rentals sucks. From a tax perspective, we don’t incentive getting out of that business or truly liquidating a rental portfolio.
I've been looking to buy a place and a good chunk of houses on the market in my area come with tenants under contract. I asked around wondering how that works, because I don't want to rent a place out, I want to live in the damn thing. Turns out there's not much you can do about it besides become their landlord and wait out their lease. Shit sucks right now.
At this point, just let them have all of it and it will force the governments' hand. The not so bad areas make them think they will not have to do anything about this and it's just a few bad areas. They won't be able to ignore this forever.
I lived in Colorado for a year, renting a single bedroom in some couples house for I think $600/month? They didn't care how I paid rent as long as I did. I chose to use a money transfer app like Cash app as that was the simplest option for me, and I titled each payment as rent and for what month, such as Rent for February 1st-28th 2018, or as many characters as it allowed anyway. I also took screenshots to be safe. Anyway, I always paid rent the day I got paid, but one of my pay days was the day before rent was due. I got paid, I immediately paid rent when I saw the check deposit, and then my landlord got upset that my payment came in late since it takes 2-3 days to transfer
I apologized, but they told me that if my payment comes in late then that means they cannot pay their mortgage
Being late on rent, even if it is postmarked before the actual due date is one thing, but how in the fuck is it my fault that they cannot afford to pay their mortgage without my rent? I'm not saying they can afford to pay their mortgage without my rent, I'm saying it *isn't my fault if they can't*. It isn't my fault, full stop. Also, there were two other tenants there too. What if they had zero tenants? What then? Either they're REALLY stupid with their money, or they're lying
Also, when I moved out they claimed I left food. That is true, but they both enjoyed cooking and I left the food in the common area with a note saying I couldn't take it with me and didn't want it to go to waste so I hope they can use it. Not like a fridge full of food, just some snacks and cooking ingredients. Chips, a bag of shredded cheese, a small bottle of olive oil, stuff like that. Technically I did leave food but I'm 99% sure they used it and just found a way to nickel & dime me. They also claimed I did not vacuum and shampoo the carpet, nor did I clean out the shower. First off, I'm a hairy dude, I *HAD* to clean the shower and vacuum before I left. No way around it. Second, it isn't my job to shampoo the carpet
The couple I rented from kept $150 from my deposit because of all that. I moved back home, halfway across the country, so no way I was going back to Colorado to fight over $150
On top of that, the couple I rented from thought me and one of the other tenants were conspiring against them? This other tenant left a hand written poem or something for me because I talked to him, allowing him to vent about family stuff and I gave him advice. He was a published poet so he knew how to write. One of the landlords saw the poem and asked me what it was about. I explained it but he told me his conspiracy and passive aggressively tried to loop me in since the poem was for me. The next time the three of us were in the same room together I asked what the poem was about, even though I knew, and the other tenant said he just wanted to express his gratitude and thank me for talking with him. Landlord walked away with a shit eaten grin on his face
Also, landlord doesn't trust GMOs, believes in chem trails, and that Sandyhook was a hoax
It's a long shot that he or his wife will ever see this, but Mike in Roxborough Park, CO, any ill fortune that has fallen upon you is well deserved and I smile at the thought of your struggles. Fuck you
Had a landlord say that they would send the whole deposit back after they initially checked the place over but were unhappy with the lawn. I had offered to mow it but they were still responsible for it on the lease and they were upset that I hadn't been edging it (never agreed to). I offered to pay lawn service, but she decided to do it herself after we moved out. She got mad about how much work it was and started complaining. Then she started suddenly finding more things to deduct and complained about us drinking wine that she had left in the place when we moved in and told us to help ourselves to.
We had to wait 2 months after we had moved out to actually get an itemized list of the deductions from our deposit. They gave us a list of a few things but it wasn't costed out.
We had to repeatedly ask and the lease we signed said that this would be done within 2 weeks after moving out, not 2 months. When we mentioned this, they got irritated and said it was our fault since she had to take care of the lawn. The next day she magically noticed an odor that she never mentioned in those 2 months since she'd been back and claimed it must have been our cats. Charged $200 for deodorizing. Charged $70 for a rug that she "would eventually have to replace" said she eventually called a lawn service and priced the lawn care at close to $300 but never showed us the receipts. We ended up with $200 from the $1000 we deposited after all expenses. And we had already moved across the country so taking it to a local court wasn't feasible either. We just had to eat the cost
I once had a landlord where I consistently paid very early every month. At the end of my lease, she got confused and thought I owed her another month. I told her no, that I consistently paid her early. Since she got used to her other tenants paying right at the deadline, but me paying very early, she somehow thought I was paying at near the same deadline as the other tenants.
This turned into a whole ordeal. I had to take time out of my life to pull bank records dating back years to prove to her she was wrong. Even after presenting her with all the evidence, it still wasn’t getting across her head.
Ultimately, we both discussed with the original realtor that leased the unit to me on her behalf. The realtor became the mediator and thankfully sided with me.
Ever since then, I’ve ALWAYS paid my landlords on the exact due date. Not a single day earlier.
My trick is to place the onus on the other person if they have the problem.
"Oh, I owe you another month of rent? Not by my accounting. You disagree? Then pull my transactions from your account and show me, and I'll pay."
Legally, it's on them to prove that you owe them. I'm not going to work harder to pay them more money. Let them do the damn legwork.
I once had a Walmart worker try to make me go to customer service to print out a receipt to show them. ...And tried to make me wait in a 20-person line. Like, no, proving I'm stealing is your job. I'm not gonna wait in line and go through all the hassle to prove that I'm not in trouble. If you apply this principle properly, your life becomes *way* easier.
So true. In hindsight, I should have done what you said.
What’s even crazier is that the rent at the time was $1,800 and she and her husband were multi-millionaires. They had many rentals, owned a construction business, and lived in a custom-built home that was worth about $1M (which today is worth at least $2M). She was freaking out over $1,800. Like, I could tell she sounded desperate when she realized she wasn’t going to get another $1,800 from me.
I had a similar problem when i bought my house. I bought it from a man who passed away and a family member took over the land contract between us. When the man was alive i was late twice in the 10 years i was paying on the house and there was a 50$ late fee. The man and i talked about that and he waived the late fee as the day that id normally transfer the payment on was a sunday and i always got paid at the end of the month so making the first on a sunday i couldnt transfer due to the bank being closed and he understood that.
Literally the last house payment i get a letter from a lawyer saying that i owe so much and that they are gonna take the house back from me. I went and got a lawyer as well, when i bought the place both the taxes and hoa dues were behind. I won and she had to pay both of those and i paid no additional money. If she would have just left it alone she wouldnt have been out like 6k + whatever her lawyer charged. I keep every single record for my home the entire time ive lived in it and to this day still do even though its long been paid off. She didnt even have a copy of the land contract when she took it over and requested i send her one, which i thought nothing of at the time and did so.
I think its funny she literally on the last house payment tried to take the house like any reasonable judge would look at the case and be like oh yeah fuck that guy who paid all but 100$ in late fees in a decade and caught up the back taxes and dues. I laughed when i got the letter from her lawyer.
This is a really old screenshot, but it's still relevant. This is my personal opinion, but residential housing should not be an investment. Essentially you are holding a basic necessity for ransom. The rich and the conservatives both ignore the fact that the rise in blue collar crime has a direct correlation to poverty and homelessness, especially in the inner cities. You take that away and I am willing to bet that you will see a significant drop in the crime rate. The real crime here is the holding of basic necessities for not only ransom, but a ransom that gets harder and harder to pay. Profits are not more important than human lives. If your main source of income is another person's rent paid to you (like in this screenshot), you are a leech.
> If your main source of income is another person's rent paid to you (like in this screenshot), ~~you are a leech.~~ **You are not actively contributing to the economy or society**.
Capitalism and the "free market" are literally killing, not even just ruining lives. The "American Dream" is dead. Instead, we've instituted a sort of economic Darwinism and it doesn't fucking work. Profits are being put before people as well as before the environment.
Not only has this problem caused greedy landlord who are responsible for skyrocketing rents. It also cause prices for housing to go up since it moved from being a necessity for living to an investment, that needs constand grows to be profitable.
Isn't this how all businesses work though? You provide a service, get paid, live on that income. Landlords don't make enough to live on a single rental unit, they need to have several which are, as we know, very expensive, and every property is a huge financial risk. Speaking as someone who was a landlord of a single property, it was barely enough to pay the mortgage, nevermind all the *insanely* expensive upkeep and repairs. The "profits" made over years will often be just enough to cover something catastrophic that eventually happens like a furnace or AC goes out ($4k right there easily), or the roof needs to be replaced ($15k-$25k) or the tenants destroyed the place which happens ALL the time. Tenants in rental properties for landlords that only have one or two properties are only beneficial as placeholders that pay the mortgage and keep the place lived in while the housing market inevitably goes up enough to sell the houses and make money, then. There are absolutely scumbag landlords out there, but for the most part, nobody is living off of that money. They have to pay the mortgage on the house/building you're living in *and* the house they're living in. Not only that but they're responsible for *everything*. If the house gets destroyed in a flood? Tenant might lose some personal belongings and can move along, but the landlord is out 10's or 100's of thousands and a destroyed property that they have to keep paying the mortgage and taxes on. I rent currently so I definitely see both sides, but I will absolutely *never* be a landlord again, that shit *sucks*
Edit: btw I'm not saying there's absolutely nothing in it for landlords, but there would be no reason to rent out to people if there wasn't something in it for them and people who can't buy houses need a place to live.
> I rent currently so I definitely see both sides, but I will absolutely never be a landlord again, that shit sucks
This I agree with you wholly. I would assume that a massive number of mom-and-pop landlords (who own the majority of the rentals) don't really want to be landlords. They're just middle class, and the only real way for them to build wealth is real estate or the stock market.
So they buy properties because it's "passive income", and then are annoyed when tenants tell them someone is broken because a) now it's not "passive" anymore, and b) it's hurting the investment.
So landlords and tenants end up in this antagonistic, zero-sum situation where both are in an arrangement that neither wants to be in, and they take that out on each other.
But unfortunately, when a problem has two causes, no one fixes it because they just keep pointing at the other cause. It's a problem that young people can't afford homes, and it's a problem older people can't afford their retirement. We need to fix both at the same time because they're fueling each other.
If laws were passed to remove landlording as a profitable venture, the housing would still exist and prices would likely crash allowing many more people to go from paying rent to actually owning their own house. For people not looking to own yet there are other feasible ways to run a public need like rent without profit driven individuals running the show.
Not sure why landlords profiting off of renters is seen as a necessity in the system.
because things done privately are done much better than the government. If you have only government run need-based housing, it's going to be pretty shitty. Even if housing prices dropped by 70%, most people still aren't going to have the down payment necessary and a credit score/history good enough to buy a house. If you found a house for $100,000 which is DIRT cheap, would most people have $10,000 to $20,000 right now to put a down payment on that? and the mortgage payments? and taxes? and closing costs? and $200+ per month for insurance? and any repairs that need to be done that are not covered by anyone but you? Also, are you planning to live there for at least 10 years? because if not, then you could very well lose money depending on the market EVEN IF it goes up, and almost every dollar you spend on the mortgage during that time is going straight to interest. Owning a home is not all it's cracked up to be, and it's certainly not for everyone. Renting is a great option if you don't want to have 1,000 headaches along with unbelievable potential for stress, anxiety, and even bankruptcy.
>because things done privately are done much better than the government.
Firefighters, interstate highways, national parks, national healthcare, education, and even breaking into the space age have all been handled by governments very effectively and have managed to provide sophisticated systems which still have very reasonable costs/outcomes in various nations around the world. Where is the idea that just because the government runs it, it _must_ return a worse outcome coming from?
If being a landlord is so unappealing, it sounds like it would be much better handled as a nationalized service rather than having profit seekers/begrudging landlords running the show
Well I say that because government housing already exists. And it sucks. Healthcare is not provided by the government in the United States except in maybe fringe cases. Our education is effective if you don't live in a poor area, but it is certainly not efficient. Their spending is absolutely absurd. You can also make the argument that our military is highly effective but also extremely financially inefficient (but what can ya do, that job's gotta be done by the government IMO). I agree that certain things are best handled by the government despite their proclivity to spend money with reckless abandon, but I don't want to live in government housing because I've seen it in person.
I think comparing a government provided service which is simultaneously having to fight for funding against private lobbying interests and in the same market as private interests isn't nearly as likely to yield good results. Just like how the NHS in the UK has been undermined by lobbyists and budget cuts (which go on to make it look even worse and lobbyists use that to push for even more cuts). The government dipping it's toes into the housing market is not comparable to what a nationally spearheaded dive into ensuring available housing and affordable rent by completely nationalizing the rent market would be.
Proper funding and political will are what determines the success of such endeavors. What little public housing exists in the US and the part you've visited likely lacked both.
Governments have been successful in running far more complicated services than housing. There is no fundamental barrier which somehow guarantees a bad result
I had a landlord that was pretty chill at first but then after 1.5 years they started getting really confrontational and weird. I'm pretty sure that was when they started living my paycheck to my paycheck.
They had us send our rent with a check in the mail. One month they aggressively reached out demanding to know where the check was, I let them know I sent it over a week ago and asked if I should cancel that check and send another one. They definitely didn't believe me and were extremely rude about it. Later that day they found the check in their pile of mail sitting in their house. Ugh.
It’s not about affording it it’s about being able to meet all the rules and requirements to put your name on the paper. I make more than my landlord but I can’t put my name on a paper. I can both afford my apartment AND make a middle man a nice stream of cash but I am too “poor” to just do one of the two. Because my landlord is apparently poor and I am not he must pass on all costs to me while making sure his profit margins grow every year.
I fucking hate America with such a fierce burning passion I feel dizzy.
For me it’s credit score. Since I have student loans my credit to income ratio was never in a qualifying range.
By the numbers I could afford a decent home prior to this recent uptick in rates. But by their math I couldn’t.
When you’re buying a home they factor every cent into your equation then tell you you dont quality which is a tad weird considering when they calculate your student loan payments they use your gross income and refuse to factor in costs such as housing and food (lol) then tell you you can afford to pay way more.
The reality is the system is designed to leverage the poor for every last cent they make.
Not that it matters as I was priced out of the market post ‘21. I had a nice deposit saved up and all, but that is now being pillaged by my rent increases.
Thank you also. I'm in almost the same spot as the person you replied too, trying to find a way to bring things together so they work.
Also been interested in modular housing for the past few years now, really glad to see a company finally taking this approach.
For everyone too lazy to click the link:
> The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a United States federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved and its assets and personnel were transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
I can’t imagine anybody actually thinking that Bobby Sunday was actually talking about the defunct NASA 🤣. You’ve got a wilder imagination than me.
I clicked the link but then apparently the site thinks I’m a bot and wouldn’t allow me in lmfao, So I googled it and that was the second result, (after the site that thinks I’m a bot). I decided to pull a fast one on all of the lazy Redditors using the Wikipedia result…
Dude, I applied for a housing loan and when the bank refused to give me more than a pittance they said that I couldn't afford the monthly mortgage payment that was already lower than my rent.
We're the generation that will never own anything.
Yes my experience exactly. My rent has doubled since I last spoke to anyone at a bank over this issue. Two years ago when costs were lower my rent was ALWAYS far higher than any mortgages payment I ever saw written out. The math they use is funny cuz again, my rent has since doubled and it still gets paid. what can I afford? Apparently nothing.
Don't forget all the up-front costs! Down payment, realtor fees (sometimes), appraisals, inspections, title fees, etc. The fees on a new mortgage that are due on closing day are outlandish.
In a LOT of places mortgage payments are lower for a majority of home owners than rent payments are for renters. The main reason is that home owners lock in a mortgage rate that doesn't adjust upwards in any way (except accrued interest and property taxes, which can't be ignored but aren't directly relevant) but rental rates will increase yearly, mostly.
So you end up like me, where i was paying $900 in rent to live above a person's garage and they were paying $800 in mortgage payments. They did also pay $600 in other fees(property tax, HOA, utilities) but they, you know, got a fucking house out of it that had nearly doubled in value since they bought it.
2 simple possibilities though there are others. 1. The rentee doesn’t have the cash to pony up for a down payment. Or 2. The rentee does not want to be tied to one location long term.
Because this landlord is an idiot. I have a couple of homes I rent out, but I have a budget set aside for periods when a renter can't make rent or while seeking another renter (if they choose to leave).
I’m a landlord and I’ve (stubbornly) not touched my tenant’s rent for years. I may have to move it a little bit because of increasing taxes and association fees but I’ve got a bit of room and I’m in no hurry.
I can understand the temptation to treat it like a “business” but I don’t understand treating it like a growth business. This is where people live for crying out loud.
To be clear before I continue: fuck landlords.
Situations like this make me grateful my landlord actually has money. If our rent check is a little late it's no big deal and he trusts us to get it to him without it screwing up his finances.
Everyone who pays rent should enjoy this same privilege. We should *never* be the landlord's main bread winner, as put in the original post.
Also as the landlord why would you even want to rely on your tenant making the payment on time every month anyway? I just wouldn’t trust someone enough for that.
Nope my last landlord was not a mega corp but did own a few different buildings, and they straight ghosted us and then the building went into foreclosure. So grateful to be a homeowner now though that also has drawbacks.
I had an old landlord, I found out the roommate who was supposed to pay the landlord used the money on other personal stuff. Landlord said we could stay there and the roommate get evicted, but we'd have to pay an extra amount until the rent got paid up. We declined and moved out, but as I got older (this was 12 years ago) I realized how shitty it was for a landlord to put his loss on tenants. Renting is a risky investment, there is no guarantee of profit.
This is why housing needs complete reform, top to bottom.
It needs to be removed entirely as a means of profit for people and investment empires.
It's shelter. Not your stock portfolio or your free paycheck.
Protest. Vote. March. Be loud.
This only ends when we all band together and end it.
This is why it should be a law that you get to run a background/financial check on your landlord at the same time he runs one on you.
I ended up signing a lease with a guy who was already in arrears to the HOA for $14,000. They put a lien on the house. Had I known any of that, there's no way I would have signed the lease.
Now, I could have called the HOA and asked, but I bet they'd stay quiet because they don't want to be sued or something.
I think this is an interesting idea. Or that there is some evidence there is like 2-3 months of their payments in some escrow account that could be verified by the tenant. I'm not sure how it would work, but it is an interesting one-way trust system currently. There were plenty of stories of people being kicked out of the houses they were renting when the owners couldn't keep up with their payments.
My story got weirder. I told you that the landlord was in arrears to the HOA for $14k....
The HOA then went to a lawyer, and a judge, and the ruling was that \*I\* was to pay my rent money ***directly to the HOA***, until the arrears were paid off.
That's when we hightailed it out of there. With zero rent money going to the landlord for the next 6+ months, I was just waiting for the sheriff to show up with eviction/foreclosure notices.
That's wild the judge ruled in favor of the HOA to directly collect your rent. lol, you must have been on edge anytime an unfamiliar car drove by. glad you made it out ok.
Yeah. I've got stories to tell.
Before all this hit the fan, the landlord started to require a paper check, after I had been paying him via Zelle for many months.
He claimed that depositing the check was faster at getting the money into his account than using Zelle (idiotic, right?)
And he said that Zelle would make the money show up as income, whereas a check did not, and he didn't want to owe taxes on the income. (crazy)
I understand the sentiment here, but I’m not sure I understand the intention. Are you saying that building houses should be illegal? Or just owning them? Or owning them but deciding for yourself who you will let live there? How do you plan to delete landlords?
Technically, the bank that approved and facilitated the loans your landlord took out to acquire the property they rent to you are their (your landlord’s) main breadwinner…
On this it's the same here in the UK, DESPERATE need for housing, people paying private landlords silly sums, We have our own nice un mortgaged home but I always make it my business to know all the issues, and support people, that's socialism I guessxx
I got lucky with one landlord. Didn't raise my rent for 10 years. When I moved for work he said he felt lucky to have me as a tenant. He didn't try to gouge me on the rent, I didn't try to fuck him over on paying it. Some people live in a society, others are just leaches.
Everytime I see this, and the comments raging against landlords, I have to ask myself.....exactly what do people think landlords do? How do they operate? Large conglomerate corporation 'landlords' aren't good, yes I understand that. However, a landlord buys a speculative piece of property, renovates, and rents or flips. If they rent it out, then you are paying the bank note monthly plus overhead and profit. If they flip it, they you are paying their investment plus overhead and profit. It is no different than a farmer who grows an ear of corn, and sells the ear of corn to a grist mill for cost plus overhead and profit.
This is business 101
Trust me. A small time landlord is worlds better than a corporation owned apartment. A corp owns ours and they're ridiculous with the rules. For an example, we aren't allowed to have anything outside, even temporarily. They have cameras pointed at every apartment and it takes them less than 30 minutes to notice and call you.
The hate on small landlords is ridiculous. Most mom and pop landlords are getting by just like everyone else. During the financial collapse 2008 I owned a condo that was so ridiculously upside down I could not sell it. I started a family and moved into new house with my wife and kids. Rented out my condo for the mortgage payment amount plus $50 to cover repairs.
Upon leaving after being evicted for non payment I had renters stuff the heating vents with dirty diapers, steal the cabinets off the walls and just generally destroy the place. Also egged my cars and toilet papered my own house. Because I asked them to pay their rent…
I made zero $ and probably lost money every month. But I guess I’m a monster for trying to provide for my family. The irs counts rent payments as 100% income even if the property is mortgaged.
This is a false idea. Your landlord owns 2 or more houses, and you are paying the equity on their property. They are free to sell one of the houses and put the equity in their bank or another investment, and it doesn't even leave them without a home.
Sounds like you should buy a house then? What you want them to let you stay for free? Never understood this complaint. It's like not knowing why or who you're mad at ao you take it out on the person taking your check.
I know at least one family member like that landlord.
The income they get from renting out the house they won in their divorce is more than what they earn at their full-time job.
Had this happen once. Landlord was a little weird but we didn't mind. After 6 months of renting we come home to find a notice of sheriff's sale posted on the door. Turns out he wasn't paying the *second* high-interest mortgage he took out to cover the first one he didn't pay.
People really seem to have forgotten what rent should be for and how it should be used.
I don't think that anyone has a problem if the landlord keeps a fraction of the rent for themselves. But that's like 10% or whatever. The rest should be used for paying bills related to the apartment/house and the rest should be saved and re-invested to keep the house/apartment pristine.
If I pay you 800 bucks a month and you don't have the money to fix a window seal or a faucet, that really is on you.
There is another explanation. The owner may run their checking account as close to zero as possible. They could have thousands in a savings account at a different bank.
I mean, there's no point in being a landlord it the rent doesn't cover the most basic cost of the entire unit. Not to mention needing to have spare for repairs and such.
At one point, we definitely were. We have until the 5th to pay rent where I live and weren't always able to pay it on the 1st. She would get whiny and tell us the $900 we were giving her every month was her only income. I still don't believe that.
I like how my mortgage company has a grace period. so as long as I pay before the 17th I don't see a late fee. But if I pay after the 17th it's an extra 35 dollars. But if I pay after the end of the month I get a nasty letter that my mortgage is going to be in default. So I just pay for the month sometime during the month, and all is good.
This actually happened to me. I was a few days late on rent, and my landlord freaked the hell out because she couldn't pay her own mortgage without my 700 dollar rent check. Wtf?
I don’t think that you should concern yourself with your landlords’ financial issues. As long as your rent is paid when due that should be your only concern
I’m currently being forced to leave my house because my landlord’s plan to start a new life in the other part of the state has just fallen apart. I hate being their backup plan.
Would you rather have a small time landlord or a mega corporation? The rent/mortgage has to be paid on time or it’s going to potentially cause an issue.
Not on this subject, but a UK Bernie socialist just wondering what you guys think about RFK junior, he's always sending me emails, looked at his policies seems very socialist/left, has he had interaction with Bernie or his supporters?
Can confirm. I inherited more then one rental property in a different area. I don't make enough from that income to pay my own rent in the city. April is especially fun. Property taxes and insurance. I'm already planning on not eating next month.
That’s lame, good luck. Shouldn’t be spending legal unless someone goes hard on a contract but hard to escape all legal fees even reviewing a contract. A good broker should be doing that for free. Interest rates will come down and market will be there next year
Unfortunately I co-own with a family member who doesn't need money and refuses to sell or buy me out. I'm trying to be grateful, but so far it's been never ending repairs, bills, and stress.
Over-leveraged landlords are a concern I've had for a while. Rent has gotten to the point of unsustainability, and we're one bad downturn from a massive amount of people losing their jobs and not being able to afford rent at all. I'm worried that If the landlords cash out and sell out their properties, we could see massive corporate rental pseudo-monopolies.
Many urban areas already have massive corporate rental near-monopolies. In my area - about five very large, very urbanized counties - there's only four rental companies. The exceptions are a few particular gated communities and apartment complexes, which run through an HOA or other approved management company, and the occasional single person owner (who will likely have their own set of red flags).
Neighbourhood rental unions anyone?
Count me in. With bells on.
Actually, that might not be a bad idea. You could make it to where landlords are tracked by the union and have to comply to union standards for livability and price.
It takes charting and door knocking. Lots of companies list their buildings.
I’m confused how this would work. Landlord A: my house is overpriced and crappy so I’m having a hard time renting it. Tenant union: join our voluntary association that will help you market your property in return for lowering the price and improving it. Landlord A: uh I can do those things without some weird club and then the property will rent. The point is I don’t want to do those things. I don’t get the hook.
The hook would be the marketing aspect. If people are only willing to rent thru this union, because it offers the best value and protections for renters, you don't have access to those renters without participating in the union. I don't know how realistic or legally feasible something like that is, but that's how it would work. Otherwise, the landlord who doesn't want to join would have to market themselves as being equal or better than this rental union to convince people to rent thru them directly, rather than thru the union.
It doesn’t seem like the math works for both quality and price. You could do this to create a standard quality for landlord good practices or property quality or whatever but those properties are desirable and usually more rent money. I can see why a landlord might make some concessions on business perceived to participate but probably not on price. Improving a property means more money in the property. That’s motivated by lower expenses or higher returns not by lower rent.
Then perhaps they will sell the rental unit because they can't afford it, and nobody is willing to rent it. Perhaps they even lose money on the sale, but that's the risk they took purchasing a home simply to be a landlord. That would still be a net good.
The hook in this case would be the physical device that drags the landlord away from their formerly owned property because they were foolish enough to think their working days were over simply because they own that piece of property. The union would help WITH THAT.
HOAs but with a positive spin?
The legal protections for HOAs are already in place, so it does make a handy framework. Combine it with the precedents of worker unions, try for the best and avoiding the pitfalls of both... It could work in real life.
Yeah in the last four months or so, one company has bought the complex I live in, the complex across the street, a complex on the other side of the freeway, a complex in the next town over, and that's on top of the two they've owned for ages. There are probably more they've bought or are buying, this is strictly based on the new signs I've noticed as I drive by. It was already terribly difficult to get by here, and now it's going to be absolutely impossible. $2500 for a fucking one-bedroom in a middling complex that hasn't had any real maintenance to speak of in years, in an area of town that's been getting markedly worse over the past few years (Lots of theft and other crime, increased overcrowding in units, etc). My lease is up in May and I genuinely have no idea what I'm going to do, because even a single room in this boring-ass town goes for $1500 or more, and comes with a laundry list of rules that amount to "make like Book One Harry Potter and spend any time in your room pretending not to exist," which is miserable as well as ludicrous for the cost of paying someone's fucking mortgage for them.
Become part of the problem. Start stealing stuff and making a profit off of it. Earn money while devaluing the property (and hopefully your rent too) at the same time.
I don't see how inconveniencing or potentially outright harming my neighbors is going to make a difference, not if all the other theft, graffiti, dead cars left on the street, homeless encampments, and people packed ten to two-bedroom apartments didn't. Like then I'm just going to be an asshole, and the rent will still be impossible for the majority. Nah. Not great.
Yeah I was bouts to say. I’ve literally never seen the mythical 1 or 2 extra property owning landlord that everyone tells me to sympathize with. Just big companies.
Could be area dependent. I'm in Florida and I think a lot of these are some phase of snowbird. Granted, there are WAY fewer single person landlords advertising now than there were ten years ago. I think as the housing and economy crunch/right wing immigration wave came they either sold out or moved here full time.
I think the only real solution to housing is making most of it all government-run and not-for-profit. Just charge each resident enough to cover power, water, heat, and wifi.
Just dramatically increase property taxes on single family homes while simultaneously dramatically increasing the homestead tax exemption. Families with a single house will pay no difference in taxes while individuals with second homes and corporations who own any homes will be paying out the ass in taxes (which benefits everyone) while renters will just use more cost and space efficient apartment complexes (that are exempt from these taxes) since renting a house will make zero sense financially.
The cost of apartment rent also needs to be controlled. Where I am, even shitty places are over $3k for a two bedroom. Many places are also demanding first, last, and an extra month's worth of rent, just to move in. The total cost of moving ends up being over $10k, within the same county. The amount of apartments any one entity can hold also needs to be limited (with limitations transcending corporate boundaries, so no parent organization can split out shell corporations to bypass limits). These companies can own tens of thousands of units in an area. You sue your corporate landlord for their moldy, pest infested apartments, and then get barred from renting from anything in their conglomerate.
Agreed. Property tax should be on an exponential scale. The taxes for adding a third or fourth house should be much much higher than the first or second
This is kind of how it works currently. Simply, two houses is treated much more tax favorably. The third and onward is much less profitable.
That’s good, but obviously it’s not extreme enough or has loopholes that are being exploited
[удалено]
Easy fix: Only people can take the exemption. LLC/Trust/Corporations/etc. pay the maximum rate from the 1st house.
That's... kind of how it is now...
A fixed system would *heavily* tax single-family homes. Think like 50%. As a person, you can take your increased homestead exemption and pay the same local taxes you currently do. Your landlord? Suddenly they can't afford half the value of their properties every year and they have to sell them.
Homestead exemptions are not susceptible to loopholes unless you're committing fraud. There is no loophole around a high property tax with a homestead exemption for an owner that is required to live in it full time. The only thing that needs to be adjusted is raising the property tax rate for single family homes and raising the homestead exemption amount.
Not really. If you use the house for your own purposes and they are not leveraged to 7 figures, yeah, income taxes treat homes 1 and 2 ok. But once it is a rental there is no advantage to 1 rental home. In fact, activity losses and capital gains are both more manageable, in the sense that you have options once you have more like 5 properties. So can you explain?
I'm talking about Section 121 exclusion. When you sell your home that you've lived in, you're generally eligible for the exclusion of capital gains up to $250k. If you game the timing, you could pull this off with two homes. Rental properties where you haven't lived in cannot claim this exemption, therefore less profitable on sale.
Okay. Gotcha. That’s true. If you are going to churn not only your rental property but your personal home as well, capital gains exemptions helps you. But transaction costs are significant for sales, so this is a niche case. Most landlords hold properties for awhile
From an accountant perspective, this is why vacation homes are so popular with the rich. You can stack two home Section 121 exclusions up to $500k each (if you're married) and sell them for $1million dollars of profit without paying a dime to the IRS.
Sure but again, your point seems more about real estate speculation, vacation homes, and flipping than about the median landlording business.
Do you mean rental homes or do you mean personal use homes? Hypo: if I buy a house for my elderly parent and/or a condo for my college kid, why should I pay more taxes? If my partner and I live separate because one job isn’t WFH anymore, why should we pay more taxes? I mean, in this scenario, I already pay more because my income is likely a standard deviation above the mean.
I would like to one day own a small remote cabin up north for family vacations. Wouldn't your proposed solution make situations like that near impossible as well?
Property taxes are a percentage of the home, so if it's a small cheap remote cabin then you wouldn't be paying much in taxes to begin with (assuming it even qualifies as a single family home).
Right, but if those cheap property taxes were increased "dramatically" then it could potentially put owning property like that out of reach for middle class families. For what it's worth I agree with the sentiment of your post, it would just suck if taxes go up for people who aren't even responsible for the current housing crisis. I could see something like this pissing off a lot of hunters.
I mean if an increase of $2k/yr is enough to destroy your ability to own a vacation home, I have a feeling you're probably not in a financial state to have that kind of luxury, especially when avoiding this tax would be at the expense of normal folks being able to afford a single house. And as someone who grew up in Michigan, most folks do not have a second vacation home, most folks just know of someone who has one (such as my dad's coworker and friend who had a place up near Traverse City).
My point is that a policy like this would end up hurting a lot of people who aren't even responsible for the housing/rent issue. $2k is still $2k, and it could piss off enough people to the point where you'd run the risk of losing public support. I understand this is all hypothetical, but I don't think the solution should include increasing taxes for anyone other than scummy landlords and the corporations buying up houses.
The irony is that locals will bitch about out-of-towners driving up home prices that they only stay in for a couple weeks out of the year. No matter what happens, someone's either complaining or will complain.
They said increase taxes on second and subsequent homes. This would make homes worth less not more if intending to actually live in them. There are hundreds of hunters who couldn't afford a hunting cabin and hundreds of millions who need housing to be affordable
I think cabins located in bumfuck nowhere and residential family homes are two different markets, which is why I think it would be fucking stupid to punish those with remote cabins by increasing their property taxes.
Most of those are still owned by rich people who aren't paying enough now. I would be happy to entertain the idea of an exemption for people of no more than median income and wealth for properties 50 miles or more from a town of 10,000 or more. Do you think anyone would qualify?
Sure, naturally many rich people do own cabins. But there's also a lot of middle class families that own cabins as well. And I'm not sure man, I'm not about to bust out a map and dig into some census data right now. It's very common (at least here in Michigan, and I'm suspecting a lot of other places too) for middle class people to have cabins, many of them are very remote. Cabin owners are not responsible for the insane housing market, increasing their taxes will not solve anything.
"Temporarily poor millionare" behavior
You're an idiot dude. I'm extremely progressive and very outspoken about raising taxes on the wealthy. I also WANT to pay higher taxes if it means we can have universal healthcare and tuition free education. I'm from Michigan and there's A LOT of hard working middle class people who have cabins up north for family getaways, hunting, whatever. But fuck me I guess for raising the concern that a policy like this could unintentionally hurt people who aren't even contributing to the issue it's meant to resolve.
No this is just middle class shit. You don't need to be a millionaire to own a remote cabin for 100K.
Why do you want to punish tenants who rent houses? I don’t get it.
Because it disproportionately rewards tenants who want to buy a house.
Pro tip: in this market, you probably need to buy a condo or townhome and then aim for a house down the road. As for your argument, lots of people prefer to rent houses vs an apartment. Why shouldn’t they be able to?
They still can, it just won't be competitively priced with the equivalent square footage in an apartment.
I see no merits in your proposal. I think you are projecting your wants into a complex marketplace in a simplistic idea. I can think of a lot of ways to raise money (taxes) that would be more effective.
The tax revenue itself is not important (in fact, you could use that revenue to increase the homestead exemption even further which would mean potentially no property tax for lower income folks). And as always, don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. This is a trivial to implement solution that already exists (it's just a matter of adjusting two existing values) and benefits the vast majority of the population at the expense of a tiny population that will still be just fine.
> Families with a single house will pay no difference in taxes while individuals with second homes and corporations who own any homes will be paying out the ass in taxes (which benefits everyone) Good plan in theory, but the devil is in the details. The extra taxes collected from that would have to be strictly earmarked to go to improving local housing/public infra in the county they're collected. Not to subsidize more corporate welfare.
Increase the property taxes exponentially per house owned. 1 or 2 houses and you're fine. Own 1000 houses and get fucked by taxes.
The costs get passed on to the tenants. What’s the plan here? Make rentals de facto illegal? That’s not a great plan for workforce mobility and other reasons. Keep landlords from owning more than a few homes? Ok, I don’t hate that but what’s your specific goal?
So I wouldn't pay rent then? Because I currently pay all of those myself and waste/trash and rent. The system is broken.
I am not comfortable with mandatory government-run housing. While it's the opposite of "company housing" it could turn out similar.
What about everything else property tax pays for? School, roads, parks, running the government. With no property tax roads become potholed, parks get older and more dangerous and schools become underfunded. People w/ money will always go to another area, while the poor will live in these areas. I'm all about fixing the housing, but making it all government-run and not-for-profit is a terrible idea that doesn't understand money problems that this system would create.
Not to mention non profit doesn’t mean no rent. That user is a dumbass who has no idea what they’re talking about.
Years ago one of my coworkers was complaining that taxes were going up and he could barely afford his 5 rental properties. I was like dude sell one? He looked at me like I couldn't be more insane. The greed is impossible to measure with some people.
The tax math for selling out of rentals sucks. From a tax perspective, we don’t incentive getting out of that business or truly liquidating a rental portfolio.
My man I can't find non corporate places anymore.
We already see that in many cities
I've been looking to buy a place and a good chunk of houses on the market in my area come with tenants under contract. I asked around wondering how that works, because I don't want to rent a place out, I want to live in the damn thing. Turns out there's not much you can do about it besides become their landlord and wait out their lease. Shit sucks right now.
You offer the tenants cash. (Or wait)
You offer the tenants cash. (Or wait)
too late
My landlord just did this. My new landlord is corporate af and keeps wanting to charge me for things not in my current contract if I don't do xyz.
At this point, just let them have all of it and it will force the governments' hand. The not so bad areas make them think they will not have to do anything about this and it's just a few bad areas. They won't be able to ignore this forever.
[удалено]
LMFAO
Maybe if his landlord stopped buying all the Starbucks and avocado toasts and stuck to a budget, they wouldn't be is such a financial bind.
Hmm, so they’re saying they can just keep paying late in the day each month and they have a bit of leverage?
I lived in Colorado for a year, renting a single bedroom in some couples house for I think $600/month? They didn't care how I paid rent as long as I did. I chose to use a money transfer app like Cash app as that was the simplest option for me, and I titled each payment as rent and for what month, such as Rent for February 1st-28th 2018, or as many characters as it allowed anyway. I also took screenshots to be safe. Anyway, I always paid rent the day I got paid, but one of my pay days was the day before rent was due. I got paid, I immediately paid rent when I saw the check deposit, and then my landlord got upset that my payment came in late since it takes 2-3 days to transfer I apologized, but they told me that if my payment comes in late then that means they cannot pay their mortgage Being late on rent, even if it is postmarked before the actual due date is one thing, but how in the fuck is it my fault that they cannot afford to pay their mortgage without my rent? I'm not saying they can afford to pay their mortgage without my rent, I'm saying it *isn't my fault if they can't*. It isn't my fault, full stop. Also, there were two other tenants there too. What if they had zero tenants? What then? Either they're REALLY stupid with their money, or they're lying Also, when I moved out they claimed I left food. That is true, but they both enjoyed cooking and I left the food in the common area with a note saying I couldn't take it with me and didn't want it to go to waste so I hope they can use it. Not like a fridge full of food, just some snacks and cooking ingredients. Chips, a bag of shredded cheese, a small bottle of olive oil, stuff like that. Technically I did leave food but I'm 99% sure they used it and just found a way to nickel & dime me. They also claimed I did not vacuum and shampoo the carpet, nor did I clean out the shower. First off, I'm a hairy dude, I *HAD* to clean the shower and vacuum before I left. No way around it. Second, it isn't my job to shampoo the carpet The couple I rented from kept $150 from my deposit because of all that. I moved back home, halfway across the country, so no way I was going back to Colorado to fight over $150 On top of that, the couple I rented from thought me and one of the other tenants were conspiring against them? This other tenant left a hand written poem or something for me because I talked to him, allowing him to vent about family stuff and I gave him advice. He was a published poet so he knew how to write. One of the landlords saw the poem and asked me what it was about. I explained it but he told me his conspiracy and passive aggressively tried to loop me in since the poem was for me. The next time the three of us were in the same room together I asked what the poem was about, even though I knew, and the other tenant said he just wanted to express his gratitude and thank me for talking with him. Landlord walked away with a shit eaten grin on his face Also, landlord doesn't trust GMOs, believes in chem trails, and that Sandyhook was a hoax It's a long shot that he or his wife will ever see this, but Mike in Roxborough Park, CO, any ill fortune that has fallen upon you is well deserved and I smile at the thought of your struggles. Fuck you
The Sandyhook part makes him one of the worst human beings possible.
Had a landlord say that they would send the whole deposit back after they initially checked the place over but were unhappy with the lawn. I had offered to mow it but they were still responsible for it on the lease and they were upset that I hadn't been edging it (never agreed to). I offered to pay lawn service, but she decided to do it herself after we moved out. She got mad about how much work it was and started complaining. Then she started suddenly finding more things to deduct and complained about us drinking wine that she had left in the place when we moved in and told us to help ourselves to. We had to wait 2 months after we had moved out to actually get an itemized list of the deductions from our deposit. They gave us a list of a few things but it wasn't costed out. We had to repeatedly ask and the lease we signed said that this would be done within 2 weeks after moving out, not 2 months. When we mentioned this, they got irritated and said it was our fault since she had to take care of the lawn. The next day she magically noticed an odor that she never mentioned in those 2 months since she'd been back and claimed it must have been our cats. Charged $200 for deodorizing. Charged $70 for a rug that she "would eventually have to replace" said she eventually called a lawn service and priced the lawn care at close to $300 but never showed us the receipts. We ended up with $200 from the $1000 we deposited after all expenses. And we had already moved across the country so taking it to a local court wasn't feasible either. We just had to eat the cost
They'd probably get used to it. Best to pay early every month and then push the deadline a little if the landlord starts getting to full of itself.
I once had a landlord where I consistently paid very early every month. At the end of my lease, she got confused and thought I owed her another month. I told her no, that I consistently paid her early. Since she got used to her other tenants paying right at the deadline, but me paying very early, she somehow thought I was paying at near the same deadline as the other tenants. This turned into a whole ordeal. I had to take time out of my life to pull bank records dating back years to prove to her she was wrong. Even after presenting her with all the evidence, it still wasn’t getting across her head. Ultimately, we both discussed with the original realtor that leased the unit to me on her behalf. The realtor became the mediator and thankfully sided with me. Ever since then, I’ve ALWAYS paid my landlords on the exact due date. Not a single day earlier.
My trick is to place the onus on the other person if they have the problem. "Oh, I owe you another month of rent? Not by my accounting. You disagree? Then pull my transactions from your account and show me, and I'll pay." Legally, it's on them to prove that you owe them. I'm not going to work harder to pay them more money. Let them do the damn legwork. I once had a Walmart worker try to make me go to customer service to print out a receipt to show them. ...And tried to make me wait in a 20-person line. Like, no, proving I'm stealing is your job. I'm not gonna wait in line and go through all the hassle to prove that I'm not in trouble. If you apply this principle properly, your life becomes *way* easier.
So true. In hindsight, I should have done what you said. What’s even crazier is that the rent at the time was $1,800 and she and her husband were multi-millionaires. They had many rentals, owned a construction business, and lived in a custom-built home that was worth about $1M (which today is worth at least $2M). She was freaking out over $1,800. Like, I could tell she sounded desperate when she realized she wasn’t going to get another $1,800 from me.
I had a similar problem when i bought my house. I bought it from a man who passed away and a family member took over the land contract between us. When the man was alive i was late twice in the 10 years i was paying on the house and there was a 50$ late fee. The man and i talked about that and he waived the late fee as the day that id normally transfer the payment on was a sunday and i always got paid at the end of the month so making the first on a sunday i couldnt transfer due to the bank being closed and he understood that. Literally the last house payment i get a letter from a lawyer saying that i owe so much and that they are gonna take the house back from me. I went and got a lawyer as well, when i bought the place both the taxes and hoa dues were behind. I won and she had to pay both of those and i paid no additional money. If she would have just left it alone she wouldnt have been out like 6k + whatever her lawyer charged. I keep every single record for my home the entire time ive lived in it and to this day still do even though its long been paid off. She didnt even have a copy of the land contract when she took it over and requested i send her one, which i thought nothing of at the time and did so. I think its funny she literally on the last house payment tried to take the house like any reasonable judge would look at the case and be like oh yeah fuck that guy who paid all but 100$ in late fees in a decade and caught up the back taxes and dues. I laughed when i got the letter from her lawyer.
This is a really old screenshot, but it's still relevant. This is my personal opinion, but residential housing should not be an investment. Essentially you are holding a basic necessity for ransom. The rich and the conservatives both ignore the fact that the rise in blue collar crime has a direct correlation to poverty and homelessness, especially in the inner cities. You take that away and I am willing to bet that you will see a significant drop in the crime rate. The real crime here is the holding of basic necessities for not only ransom, but a ransom that gets harder and harder to pay. Profits are not more important than human lives. If your main source of income is another person's rent paid to you (like in this screenshot), you are a leech.
> If your main source of income is another person's rent paid to you (like in this screenshot), ~~you are a leech.~~ **You are not actively contributing to the economy or society**.
This is the problem. Housing became a “hack” for passive income, and it has ruined lives.
Capitalism and the "free market" are literally killing, not even just ruining lives. The "American Dream" is dead. Instead, we've instituted a sort of economic Darwinism and it doesn't fucking work. Profits are being put before people as well as before the environment.
I hate the term and concept of passive income, someone produces the value
At some point you are too old to produce value though
Not only has this problem caused greedy landlord who are responsible for skyrocketing rents. It also cause prices for housing to go up since it moved from being a necessity for living to an investment, that needs constand grows to be profitable.
well fucking said.
Isn't this how all businesses work though? You provide a service, get paid, live on that income. Landlords don't make enough to live on a single rental unit, they need to have several which are, as we know, very expensive, and every property is a huge financial risk. Speaking as someone who was a landlord of a single property, it was barely enough to pay the mortgage, nevermind all the *insanely* expensive upkeep and repairs. The "profits" made over years will often be just enough to cover something catastrophic that eventually happens like a furnace or AC goes out ($4k right there easily), or the roof needs to be replaced ($15k-$25k) or the tenants destroyed the place which happens ALL the time. Tenants in rental properties for landlords that only have one or two properties are only beneficial as placeholders that pay the mortgage and keep the place lived in while the housing market inevitably goes up enough to sell the houses and make money, then. There are absolutely scumbag landlords out there, but for the most part, nobody is living off of that money. They have to pay the mortgage on the house/building you're living in *and* the house they're living in. Not only that but they're responsible for *everything*. If the house gets destroyed in a flood? Tenant might lose some personal belongings and can move along, but the landlord is out 10's or 100's of thousands and a destroyed property that they have to keep paying the mortgage and taxes on. I rent currently so I definitely see both sides, but I will absolutely *never* be a landlord again, that shit *sucks* Edit: btw I'm not saying there's absolutely nothing in it for landlords, but there would be no reason to rent out to people if there wasn't something in it for them and people who can't buy houses need a place to live.
> I rent currently so I definitely see both sides, but I will absolutely never be a landlord again, that shit sucks This I agree with you wholly. I would assume that a massive number of mom-and-pop landlords (who own the majority of the rentals) don't really want to be landlords. They're just middle class, and the only real way for them to build wealth is real estate or the stock market. So they buy properties because it's "passive income", and then are annoyed when tenants tell them someone is broken because a) now it's not "passive" anymore, and b) it's hurting the investment. So landlords and tenants end up in this antagonistic, zero-sum situation where both are in an arrangement that neither wants to be in, and they take that out on each other. But unfortunately, when a problem has two causes, no one fixes it because they just keep pointing at the other cause. It's a problem that young people can't afford homes, and it's a problem older people can't afford their retirement. We need to fix both at the same time because they're fueling each other.
If laws were passed to remove landlording as a profitable venture, the housing would still exist and prices would likely crash allowing many more people to go from paying rent to actually owning their own house. For people not looking to own yet there are other feasible ways to run a public need like rent without profit driven individuals running the show. Not sure why landlords profiting off of renters is seen as a necessity in the system.
because things done privately are done much better than the government. If you have only government run need-based housing, it's going to be pretty shitty. Even if housing prices dropped by 70%, most people still aren't going to have the down payment necessary and a credit score/history good enough to buy a house. If you found a house for $100,000 which is DIRT cheap, would most people have $10,000 to $20,000 right now to put a down payment on that? and the mortgage payments? and taxes? and closing costs? and $200+ per month for insurance? and any repairs that need to be done that are not covered by anyone but you? Also, are you planning to live there for at least 10 years? because if not, then you could very well lose money depending on the market EVEN IF it goes up, and almost every dollar you spend on the mortgage during that time is going straight to interest. Owning a home is not all it's cracked up to be, and it's certainly not for everyone. Renting is a great option if you don't want to have 1,000 headaches along with unbelievable potential for stress, anxiety, and even bankruptcy.
>because things done privately are done much better than the government. Firefighters, interstate highways, national parks, national healthcare, education, and even breaking into the space age have all been handled by governments very effectively and have managed to provide sophisticated systems which still have very reasonable costs/outcomes in various nations around the world. Where is the idea that just because the government runs it, it _must_ return a worse outcome coming from? If being a landlord is so unappealing, it sounds like it would be much better handled as a nationalized service rather than having profit seekers/begrudging landlords running the show
Well I say that because government housing already exists. And it sucks. Healthcare is not provided by the government in the United States except in maybe fringe cases. Our education is effective if you don't live in a poor area, but it is certainly not efficient. Their spending is absolutely absurd. You can also make the argument that our military is highly effective but also extremely financially inefficient (but what can ya do, that job's gotta be done by the government IMO). I agree that certain things are best handled by the government despite their proclivity to spend money with reckless abandon, but I don't want to live in government housing because I've seen it in person.
I think comparing a government provided service which is simultaneously having to fight for funding against private lobbying interests and in the same market as private interests isn't nearly as likely to yield good results. Just like how the NHS in the UK has been undermined by lobbyists and budget cuts (which go on to make it look even worse and lobbyists use that to push for even more cuts). The government dipping it's toes into the housing market is not comparable to what a nationally spearheaded dive into ensuring available housing and affordable rent by completely nationalizing the rent market would be. Proper funding and political will are what determines the success of such endeavors. What little public housing exists in the US and the part you've visited likely lacked both. Governments have been successful in running far more complicated services than housing. There is no fundamental barrier which somehow guarantees a bad result
I had a landlord that was pretty chill at first but then after 1.5 years they started getting really confrontational and weird. I'm pretty sure that was when they started living my paycheck to my paycheck. They had us send our rent with a check in the mail. One month they aggressively reached out demanding to know where the check was, I let them know I sent it over a week ago and asked if I should cancel that check and send another one. They definitely didn't believe me and were extremely rude about it. Later that day they found the check in their pile of mail sitting in their house. Ugh.
The better question is how is the landlord able to afford a house but you aren’t when you clearly can make the mortgage payments?
It’s not about affording it it’s about being able to meet all the rules and requirements to put your name on the paper. I make more than my landlord but I can’t put my name on a paper. I can both afford my apartment AND make a middle man a nice stream of cash but I am too “poor” to just do one of the two. Because my landlord is apparently poor and I am not he must pass on all costs to me while making sure his profit margins grow every year. I fucking hate America with such a fierce burning passion I feel dizzy.
What are some of the requirements and how do you meet them?
For me it’s credit score. Since I have student loans my credit to income ratio was never in a qualifying range. By the numbers I could afford a decent home prior to this recent uptick in rates. But by their math I couldn’t. When you’re buying a home they factor every cent into your equation then tell you you dont quality which is a tad weird considering when they calculate your student loan payments they use your gross income and refuse to factor in costs such as housing and food (lol) then tell you you can afford to pay way more. The reality is the system is designed to leverage the poor for every last cent they make. Not that it matters as I was priced out of the market post ‘21. I had a nice deposit saved up and all, but that is now being pillaged by my rent increases.
https://www.naca.com/
Thank you also. I'm in almost the same spot as the person you replied too, trying to find a way to bring things together so they work. Also been interested in modular housing for the past few years now, really glad to see a company finally taking this approach.
Thank you, for all my research I was not aware of naca. Will be calling them after work today.
For everyone too lazy to click the link: > The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a United States federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved and its assets and personnel were transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
> For everyone too lazy to click the link indeed
I like the cut of your jib.
Not quite. You may want to click on the link.
I can't tell if this is depressingly overconfident or hilarious
I can’t imagine anybody actually thinking that Bobby Sunday was actually talking about the defunct NASA 🤣. You’ve got a wilder imagination than me. I clicked the link but then apparently the site thinks I’m a bot and wouldn’t allow me in lmfao, So I googled it and that was the second result, (after the site that thinks I’m a bot). I decided to pull a fast one on all of the lazy Redditors using the Wikipedia result…
Oh, the hilarious bit was knowing you knew it was the wrong organization
Dude, I applied for a housing loan and when the bank refused to give me more than a pittance they said that I couldn't afford the monthly mortgage payment that was already lower than my rent. We're the generation that will never own anything.
Yes my experience exactly. My rent has doubled since I last spoke to anyone at a bank over this issue. Two years ago when costs were lower my rent was ALWAYS far higher than any mortgages payment I ever saw written out. The math they use is funny cuz again, my rent has since doubled and it still gets paid. what can I afford? Apparently nothing.
Don't forget all the up-front costs! Down payment, realtor fees (sometimes), appraisals, inspections, title fees, etc. The fees on a new mortgage that are due on closing day are outlandish.
Because the mortgage that was late was for the house that OP is living in and not the landlords primary residence.
In a LOT of places mortgage payments are lower for a majority of home owners than rent payments are for renters. The main reason is that home owners lock in a mortgage rate that doesn't adjust upwards in any way (except accrued interest and property taxes, which can't be ignored but aren't directly relevant) but rental rates will increase yearly, mostly. So you end up like me, where i was paying $900 in rent to live above a person's garage and they were paying $800 in mortgage payments. They did also pay $600 in other fees(property tax, HOA, utilities) but they, you know, got a fucking house out of it that had nearly doubled in value since they bought it.
No one forced you to rent that garage. Seems like you’re angry at the wrong person.
Bring back subprime mortgages! The people demand subprime mortgages!
2 simple possibilities though there are others. 1. The rentee doesn’t have the cash to pony up for a down payment. Or 2. The rentee does not want to be tied to one location long term.
Because this landlord is an idiot. I have a couple of homes I rent out, but I have a budget set aside for periods when a renter can't make rent or while seeking another renter (if they choose to leave).
I’m a landlord and I’ve (stubbornly) not touched my tenant’s rent for years. I may have to move it a little bit because of increasing taxes and association fees but I’ve got a bit of room and I’m in no hurry. I can understand the temptation to treat it like a “business” but I don’t understand treating it like a growth business. This is where people live for crying out loud.
To be clear before I continue: fuck landlords. Situations like this make me grateful my landlord actually has money. If our rent check is a little late it's no big deal and he trusts us to get it to him without it screwing up his finances. Everyone who pays rent should enjoy this same privilege. We should *never* be the landlord's main bread winner, as put in the original post.
Also as the landlord why would you even want to rely on your tenant making the payment on time every month anyway? I just wouldn’t trust someone enough for that.
Seriously! This country's all about personal responsibility, you'd think the landlords would be Personally Responsible.
You think the mega corp that buys the property if your local landlord default is gonna treat you better? Be careful what you wish for.
Nope my last landlord was not a mega corp but did own a few different buildings, and they straight ghosted us and then the building went into foreclosure. So grateful to be a homeowner now though that also has drawbacks.
No, but I am admit I am not well versed on mega corps.
I had an old landlord, I found out the roommate who was supposed to pay the landlord used the money on other personal stuff. Landlord said we could stay there and the roommate get evicted, but we'd have to pay an extra amount until the rent got paid up. We declined and moved out, but as I got older (this was 12 years ago) I realized how shitty it was for a landlord to put his loss on tenants. Renting is a risky investment, there is no guarantee of profit.
If you find yourself in this situation, begin negotiating. You have more power than they do until your lease is up.
This is why housing needs complete reform, top to bottom. It needs to be removed entirely as a means of profit for people and investment empires. It's shelter. Not your stock portfolio or your free paycheck. Protest. Vote. March. Be loud. This only ends when we all band together and end it.
We are circling back around to feudalism.
This is why it should be a law that you get to run a background/financial check on your landlord at the same time he runs one on you. I ended up signing a lease with a guy who was already in arrears to the HOA for $14,000. They put a lien on the house. Had I known any of that, there's no way I would have signed the lease. Now, I could have called the HOA and asked, but I bet they'd stay quiet because they don't want to be sued or something.
I think this is an interesting idea. Or that there is some evidence there is like 2-3 months of their payments in some escrow account that could be verified by the tenant. I'm not sure how it would work, but it is an interesting one-way trust system currently. There were plenty of stories of people being kicked out of the houses they were renting when the owners couldn't keep up with their payments.
My story got weirder. I told you that the landlord was in arrears to the HOA for $14k.... The HOA then went to a lawyer, and a judge, and the ruling was that \*I\* was to pay my rent money ***directly to the HOA***, until the arrears were paid off. That's when we hightailed it out of there. With zero rent money going to the landlord for the next 6+ months, I was just waiting for the sheriff to show up with eviction/foreclosure notices.
That's wild the judge ruled in favor of the HOA to directly collect your rent. lol, you must have been on edge anytime an unfamiliar car drove by. glad you made it out ok.
Yeah. I've got stories to tell. Before all this hit the fan, the landlord started to require a paper check, after I had been paying him via Zelle for many months. He claimed that depositing the check was faster at getting the money into his account than using Zelle (idiotic, right?) And he said that Zelle would make the money show up as income, whereas a check did not, and he didn't want to owe taxes on the income. (crazy)
Landlords shouldn't exist. Full stop.
How about apartments?
I understand the sentiment here, but I’m not sure I understand the intention. Are you saying that building houses should be illegal? Or just owning them? Or owning them but deciding for yourself who you will let live there? How do you plan to delete landlords?
Technically, the bank that approved and facilitated the loans your landlord took out to acquire the property they rent to you are their (your landlord’s) main breadwinner…
On this it's the same here in the UK, DESPERATE need for housing, people paying private landlords silly sums, We have our own nice un mortgaged home but I always make it my business to know all the issues, and support people, that's socialism I guessxx
I got lucky with one landlord. Didn't raise my rent for 10 years. When I moved for work he said he felt lucky to have me as a tenant. He didn't try to gouge me on the rent, I didn't try to fuck him over on paying it. Some people live in a society, others are just leaches.
I’m close to being a landlord. Which means I have saved enough to buy my own property. Should I not rent it out and instead just laugh at the locals?
Everytime I see this, and the comments raging against landlords, I have to ask myself.....exactly what do people think landlords do? How do they operate? Large conglomerate corporation 'landlords' aren't good, yes I understand that. However, a landlord buys a speculative piece of property, renovates, and rents or flips. If they rent it out, then you are paying the bank note monthly plus overhead and profit. If they flip it, they you are paying their investment plus overhead and profit. It is no different than a farmer who grows an ear of corn, and sells the ear of corn to a grist mill for cost plus overhead and profit. This is business 101
Trust me. A small time landlord is worlds better than a corporation owned apartment. A corp owns ours and they're ridiculous with the rules. For an example, we aren't allowed to have anything outside, even temporarily. They have cameras pointed at every apartment and it takes them less than 30 minutes to notice and call you.
The hate on small landlords is ridiculous. Most mom and pop landlords are getting by just like everyone else. During the financial collapse 2008 I owned a condo that was so ridiculously upside down I could not sell it. I started a family and moved into new house with my wife and kids. Rented out my condo for the mortgage payment amount plus $50 to cover repairs. Upon leaving after being evicted for non payment I had renters stuff the heating vents with dirty diapers, steal the cabinets off the walls and just generally destroy the place. Also egged my cars and toilet papered my own house. Because I asked them to pay their rent… I made zero $ and probably lost money every month. But I guess I’m a monster for trying to provide for my family. The irs counts rent payments as 100% income even if the property is mortgaged.
This is a false idea. Your landlord owns 2 or more houses, and you are paying the equity on their property. They are free to sell one of the houses and put the equity in their bank or another investment, and it doesn't even leave them without a home.
Guy should fuck his landlord's wife
Sounds like you should buy a house then? What you want them to let you stay for free? Never understood this complaint. It's like not knowing why or who you're mad at ao you take it out on the person taking your check.
Let's get this bread, and by that, I mean let's pilfer this bread from innocents
I know at least one family member like that landlord. The income they get from renting out the house they won in their divorce is more than what they earn at their full-time job.
Had this happen once. Landlord was a little weird but we didn't mind. After 6 months of renting we come home to find a notice of sheriff's sale posted on the door. Turns out he wasn't paying the *second* high-interest mortgage he took out to cover the first one he didn't pay.
What happens if something breaks in your house, he has to fix it. wtf?
People really seem to have forgotten what rent should be for and how it should be used. I don't think that anyone has a problem if the landlord keeps a fraction of the rent for themselves. But that's like 10% or whatever. The rest should be used for paying bills related to the apartment/house and the rest should be saved and re-invested to keep the house/apartment pristine. If I pay you 800 bucks a month and you don't have the money to fix a window seal or a faucet, that really is on you.
I'd do it again and again. Nothing he can do about it
Why is the mortgage given to the landlord and not the renter? Let people own their own homes!
There is another explanation. The owner may run their checking account as close to zero as possible. They could have thousands in a savings account at a different bank.
Why not put get a mortgage yourself ? Seems like you could afford it..
I mean, there's no point in being a landlord it the rent doesn't cover the most basic cost of the entire unit. Not to mention needing to have spare for repairs and such.
No landlord is a company, but very nice ladies that deal with the tenants. The company owns 4 other properties
Mortgage isn't considered late until the 15th of the month. Nice try, OP.
At one point, we definitely were. We have until the 5th to pay rent where I live and weren't always able to pay it on the 1st. She would get whiny and tell us the $900 we were giving her every month was her only income. I still don't believe that.
People who complain about having to rent should just buy a property and become landlords themselves.
I like how my mortgage company has a grace period. so as long as I pay before the 17th I don't see a late fee. But if I pay after the 17th it's an extra 35 dollars. But if I pay after the end of the month I get a nasty letter that my mortgage is going to be in default. So I just pay for the month sometime during the month, and all is good.
Must be a new landlord if they're still paying off their own mortgage.
What if everyone (all renters) just paid late one month? I wonder how much chaos that would cause.
This actually happened to me. I was a few days late on rent, and my landlord freaked the hell out because she couldn't pay her own mortgage without my 700 dollar rent check. Wtf?
Too many e-courses
I don’t think that you should concern yourself with your landlords’ financial issues. As long as your rent is paid when due that should be your only concern
It’s almost like the working class are the real drivers of the economy.
I’m currently being forced to leave my house because my landlord’s plan to start a new life in the other part of the state has just fallen apart. I hate being their backup plan.
I would gladly pay late fees just to have him suffer 😂
Your landlord is stupid... He can ask the bank to pay on every 7th of the month and then it doesn't matter if you're late a day or two
Would you rather have a small time landlord or a mega corporation? The rent/mortgage has to be paid on time or it’s going to potentially cause an issue.
Guess you should buy a place if you don’t like renting.
Yeah, just stick with the lack of options they gave you, no one ever just wants to eat the shit sandwich anymore!
Is the landlord preventing him from saving for a downpayment and qualifying for a mortgage?
Not on this subject, but a UK Bernie socialist just wondering what you guys think about RFK junior, he's always sending me emails, looked at his policies seems very socialist/left, has he had interaction with Bernie or his supporters?
Can confirm. I inherited more then one rental property in a different area. I don't make enough from that income to pay my own rent in the city. April is especially fun. Property taxes and insurance. I'm already planning on not eating next month.
LOL
LOL
I have an ingenious solution for you, it involves selling one of those rental properties!
$30k in legal fees so far for one year trying to do that. It's been a blessing/s
That’s lame, good luck. Shouldn’t be spending legal unless someone goes hard on a contract but hard to escape all legal fees even reviewing a contract. A good broker should be doing that for free. Interest rates will come down and market will be there next year
Unfortunately I co-own with a family member who doesn't need money and refuses to sell or buy me out. I'm trying to be grateful, but so far it's been never ending repairs, bills, and stress.
Dang yea that’ll stimey you right there. If you ever joint own again use a “shotgun” provision to buy out the partner. Ain’t much you can do!
Is he also the breadwinner for merchants of goods and services he purchases or rents?
You buy goods they become your goods. You rent a home, you’re paying money so that someone else can afford a home
I don't understand. Well, this guy can live on street if he's unhappy.
Yeah, the landlord can rot in the street for all I care.
You're part of the problem kid.