It could. Landlording is easy an oversimplification.
Only the ones where the people that sit around and do nothing get all the money.
1 Like
I donât know how I feel about owning a home that you donât live in and leaving it vacant. I think in a world where you canât rent it out for residential purposes that wouldnât be much of a problem in any case.
I am against renting out the bedroom for the same reasons Iâm against renting out the whole house. The fact that you can come up with a really wholesome sounding example where nobody is being explicitly an asshole to anyone else doesnât change my primary problem with the fact that weâve structured our society around a housing system where everyone in a neighborhood pays basically the same amount for housing, but only those with stable lives and lots of cash on hand gain equity in the place where they live. Meanwhile those who DO have that kind of money and stability also get to slowly leech wealth from the renting class, even if in a small amount because being a landlord is apparently not lucrative, through investment properties.
Like honestly all I could think of when ins0 said he only made 29k in 13 years from his fraudulently obtained rental property is how much that 29k probably would have meant to his tenants.
1 Like
So, NOT residential property management, got it. Glad we got that cleared up.
Where is it ok for people to gain equity who have stable lives, cash, want to work hard and take risks?
Seriously curious what businesses people against the whole paradigm of landlords/renters think are also not a good thing.
I canât wait for the sequel to this thread:
âShop owners: Making bank over peopleâs need to eat and be clothed.â
5 Likes
Two refrigerators, two sets of washer/dryer, a new furnace and A/C, a new roof on the garage, a new garage door and opener, full gutter replacement, new siding on the west end, french drain installation to stop water intrusion to the basement, demo of the finished basement because of said flooding issue, an entire bathroom remodel gutted down to the studs, rebuilding the front fence and two custom gates for said fence, a city assessment for $1900 to replace part of the sidewalk in front of the house, $1800 for a dead tree removal, two tenant turnovers and then a final pre-sale punchlist, a new water heater, basement tuckpointing, replacement carpet for the first tenant, and another full carpet replacement between the 2nd and 3rd tenants because the 2nd guy was an absolute animal.
Thatâs just off the top of my head because Iâm sure there is a ton more Iâm forgetting.
The $29k was a partial refund.
Yes, of course.
I canât read your mind, but I think itâs pretty clear that (a) you feel the concept of the sanctity of contracts is a âgoodâ thing, and (b) you seem to be making the point that a contract, is a contract, is a contract. As you said, âWhatâs differentâŚâ.
I was trying to make the point, that even right now, you donât really feel in your secret inner heart that a contract, is a contract, is a contract, just like that. I attempted to make the point by bringing up the historical example of indentured servitude, which I assume most USAers heard passing mention of in school. FYI: the term indenture in this context refers explicitly to the underlying legal contract involved.
And I feel I guessed right here. From your response, I feel you share my feelings and also arenât a fan of indenture.
From there, I was kinda hoping you might have an epiphany. I was hoping that youâd realize you donât indeed believe in the absolute sanctity of contracts. Not in all cases. I hope youâd realize that, to you at least, It depends. And, to you at least, contracts regarding certain thingees, arenât something you like, and you certainly donât care to see them (violently) enforced.
From there, I could point out other generally archaic forms of capitalism such as like sharecropping. Are you cool with sharecropping? Well maybe, maybe not.
My overall point is that contracts, and by extension, the sanctity of contracts, is a purely an artificial (and violently imposed) social construct. Like all social constructs, Landlordism can be seen as âgoodâ, or âbadâ, or âworkingâ, or ânot workingâ, or whatever. And like all social constructs, it can be adopted or rejected or replaced or extended or constricted or whatever.
You donât do shit Inso
2 Likes
Looks like a 7-Eleven to me!
Did I miss the part where someone answered Insoâs question about non-payment of rent, and what happened to people that donât pay their rent?
Because Tabbaker seems to be of the mindset that people by and large, left to their own devices, will be the most productive version of themselves, always.
As a person that started by working in a trade, then slowly transitioned into management, and have lead/managed people (both unionized and non-unionized) for over a decade now, I can tell you that is very far from the case.
1 Like
I would be fine with garnishment of wages to the extent that it still allows the person enough money to live on otherwise. If the person doesnât make enough money to garnish the full rent, think of it as them getting a housing voucher.
Thanks! I do not believe in the absolute sanctity of contracts. There are already quite a few laws in place to protect renters in their leases. If someone signed a lease that said the Landlord got their first born child if they didnât pay rent, that would never stand up.
I do believe that being too restrictive in dictating what contracts people can and cannot enter into with each other is a bad thing. You want to tell 2 people they cannot enter into a mutually agreed, often mutually beneficial, contract to exchange funds in return for shelter. I do not agree with that.
FYP
1 Like
Lol at people still engaging with inso on this after I already showed him to be a complete fraud on this issue.
You know, you donât have to be like this.
Maybe you arenât on the same page by what I mean by âmetaâ, but the way I see it, If my example didnât click with you, thatâs not hardly a meta issue. Thatâs an issue with me failing to pick an example that clicks with you. Instead of being like this, you could just ask me to explain harder. Just a thought.
I donât do gotchas. And sure, if I was looking for a gotcha, I would be confused too. Instead, I was trying to make this point
The kind of situations where the necessities of life can be withheld are fundamentally different than other kinds of situations. This including the kind of situations which simply involving trading shiz.
Iâll try some more examples, see if these clickâŚ
A) A street whore having an agreement/contract/understanding/whatever to barter BJs for food at a taco shop.
-vs-
B) A street whore having an agreement/contract/understanding/whatever with the local organized crime boss to split the revenue she earns.
These are fundamentally different kinda contracts. Does this example click with you?
WTF? That kind of hoarding should get you arrested.