Does having an AirBNB setup make someone deserving of the guillotine or does that only apply to owners of multiple houses? What about apartments?

Please explain your reasoning as well.

  • kakes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Another thing that pisses me off is that I’m literally paying >100% of the cost of the property over time, yet they retain full ownership. It’s an investment with essentially zero risk, if you have a tenant that isn’t a racoon.

    Not sure I have a good solution for that issue, honestly, but the idea of it irks me.

    My overall position boils down to: Housing should never generate profit. A landlord can take pay for the work they do, and put money aside for maintenance, but there should never be a profit made on rent.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Even if you own your home mortgage free, you’re going to be paying >100% of its value in maintenance and opportunity cost over the first ten years.

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Sure, let’s assume that’s true. The difference though is, I own the property. I get something out of the deal other than a temporary roof over my head - something I would argue is a human right.

        If I were renting, I would be paying all those same costs, plus a profit margin - and I wouldn’t own anything at all. Someone else gets to cash out on the investment that I entirely paid for.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You misunderstand. The comparison I’m trying to make is this:

          • Scenario 1: You own a home mortgage-free. You pay maintenance costs and taxes on that property.
          • Scenario 2: You own the value of the same home in cash. You rent a home to live in.

          How high does rent need to be before it becomes a better financial choice to choose scenario 1 over scenario 2? The break-even point is around the price where you would end up paying off the entire value of the home over ten years.

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, I would just like to point out that I have very rarely had a landlord do maintenance on the property I live in. One building hadn’t seen a lick of maintenance in over 30 years, until I finally convinced them to replace the oven.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          it would surprise you to learn that many business owners are shit at their jobs. You’ve never heard of mechanics ripping off people for headlight fluid? Or shoddy construction work?

          This isn’t a landlord problem. it’s a human one.

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      there absolutely should be a profit for rent. Being a good landlord is work, work should be compensated. Taking the risk of ownership (low though it might be) should be compensated.

      The issue isn’t profit. The issue is a) artificial lack of supply driving up prices b) greed and exploitation of basic needs.

      In some countries, like some of the USA, you get clean drinking water pumped into your house for your toilets. However you do the math a) people need to work on the system to keep it working and they should get paid a living wage b) water is a need even more than housing. We pay for water, and people make profit on it. How you pay for it - taxes, city rates, privately - whatever, you pay for it.

      that isn’t the issue, just like paying rent isn’t the issue. it’s the amount which is.

      the solution is simple and already exists: universal basic income, and make basic needs like water and rent limited by this amount.

      • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Tap water is not really a for-profit enterprise. Even Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, though there are some well paid lawyers and engineers on staff, has to justify their rates and re-invest it all into water supply reliability. No shareholders making a profit on tap water.

        UBI would not prevent landlords from profit. If we can afford to spend trillions on concrete bridges, we could build public housing in every city.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          “shareholders” have nothing to do with any part of this conversation.

          UBI has nothing to do with preventing profit. Which is good, because we shouldn’t be preventing profit. We should be preventing exploitation.

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Pay and profit are not the same thing, though. A landlord can be compensated for work without making a profit.

        Agreed on UBI though.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          you should be paid enough to make a profit. profit = money left over from being paid after expenses.

          If you spend some time - any time - you should be compensated an amount that allows you to do things you actually want to do.

          I’m not sure you knew what the word “profit” means, but hopefully you do now, or can find a better way to express what you mean.

          • kakes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Compensation for work - even if that work is performed by the owner - is an expense, not profit.